Geez, Greta. "Too many anonymous sources these days."

[stopbush]

Is she serious?

Yes, in the past, a source or two may have come forward to give reporters the inside scoop on a single story. With tRump, there are up to 30 sources for a single story because those sources realize how dangerous tRump is and they want to do something about it.

At least she got some pushback from her guests on her MSNBC show. Twisted logic.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. don't know about serious, but she is incompetent and not worth paying attention to at all

[B2G]

2. Sorry, I actually agree with her.

This rubs both ways. Over the year, I have seen negative articles posted about Dems here and they are immediately dismissed due to anonymous sources.

IMO, they should be.

[Kingofalldems]

14. Any links on that?

[B2G]

16. I'm sure I could search DU

Over the past 8 years, but I have better things to do.

Read enough to know. I pretty much dismiss anonymous sources no matter which side is on the receiving end. You do you.

[WhiteTara]

3. Then get your lazy ass out of the chair and do some

digging and then reporting. But as a long time Fox political hack, I doubt she'll do anything but diss Democrats

[bresue]

4. I am not sure if this effects her view, but she is a pronounced Scientologist.

Which is strange...because they are not to watch any media.

[trof]

5. affects

sorry
It's an affliction I have.

[B2G]

9. Not strange at all.

The rule are completely different for rich celebrities.

[LuckyLib]

12. Do you mean Scientologist?

[bresue]

13. Yes, been a long day...I probaby should quit posting today! lol!

[gratuitous]

6. She's acting like she doesn't understand the rules for sources

Sure, us commoners are ignorant of the protocols, but actual reporters drawing large salaries really should understand why a source might be anonymous, particularly in this administration. In ordinary times, there are a few designated persons authorized to be quoted on the record as a source for various departments. In Trumpland, with staffing vacancies rife throughout the government, that handful of authorized persons is quite often down to one or two persons.

When that's the case, and a government agency still needs to get some information out, people with knowledge are quoted anonymously, not because they're trying to hide their identity or are disclosing bombshell information, but because they aren't specifically authorized to speak for the agency. Reporters know this (or should know it, particularly if they're pulling down six or seven figures a year to be on the teevee), and will quote a spokesperson anonymously on background.

But for a story critical of the administration that has 30 anonymous sources, that says a LOT more about the administration than it does about the story itself. The ginned-up suspicion over "anonymous sources" isn't accidental. It's specifically designed to lend credence to Trump's reflexive squawking about "fake news" whenever something he doesn't like is reported. His ovine supporters hear it, and immediately join in the mindless chorus, not because the story is false but because Donny don't like it.

[katmondoo]

7. I work hard to make sure I do not see her for a second

I change to CNN minutes before she starts her show

[bresue]

10. I have been too...lol!

[Little Star]

15. I do that too! Not one second! Get off MSNBC!!!

[spanone]

8. watergate? deep throat?

[SharonClark]

11. She just had Matt Schlapp (ACU) on and he lies thru his teeth then

admits he will be on again to spin lies, and then laughs about it.