The timing is clearly going to raise questions. But the fact that non-reporters believe their partisan analysis over actual reporting is a facet of the whole fake news problem in the first placehttps://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/968964744613900288 …
-
I disbelieve White House staff regularly. The fact you don’t is more of a worry, I hazard a guess.
Come on, you know I’m not taking the word of White House staff. Hicks has been telling people since the weekend she was leaving. That’s not from WH sources. But believe what you want.
-
-
But the original reports said "a long time". Now it's "the weekend". Soon it will be "after trump yelled at her about the 'white lie' bit (reported by CNN)"
-
The original reports said she has been talking about it a long time. Told people her decision had been made over the weekend. Ryan is correct and the report that it was about the committee is inaccurate.
-
CNN is wrong and you are right? In a world where there’s a lot of lying, you are asking the public to unquestionably accept your judgment of whether anonymous sources are lying or not. I would respectfully suggest that to not accept it is legit skepticism, not fake news.
-
Respectfully, people are going to believe what they want. I am standing by my reporting, as I'm sure Erin Burnett is standing by hers. But, respectfully, choosing to believe one over the other because it fits a narrative is also dangerous.
-
Sure. But when there are two conflicting accounts, maybe some of us believe the news that fits a pretty clear pattern, not a narrative we like. Rather than assume otherwise, you could accept that possibility.
-
This entire exercise forces us to believe that a PR professional selected not just an imperfect time but the least perfect time to leave. A little skepticism is reasonable.
-
A *lot* of skepticism is reasonable.
-
And appropriate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I grant it is hard to cover liars. And I don’t know your sources. But when we’ve all been lied to by friends of the White House, a public unwilling to share your trust in any WH allies shouldn’t be attacked.
-
Someone is lying. Because we have reporting from other outlets providing an alternative explanation. How can any of us judge whether your sources are right or CNN’s are when sources are private? Seems odd to attack a skeptical public.
-
It’s part of a pattern. Reporters believe their sources are unassailable. We don’t. It’s a real problem of access journalism.
-
Hey guy, go easy on Maggie. She's watching her "access" walk right out the door. These are trying times. Some compassion, please!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The NYT tends to believe anything a Trump crony tells them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why do you believe those sources? Honest question.
-
Hope is the source. It's pretty obvious. Honestly, if anyone in this administration WASN'T thinking about leaving right when it started, they're not qualified to be in government.
-
He said something about the source(s) not being WH folks...
-
Haberman, though.
-
Yes, probably. Though why anyone would believe anything that comes out of this WH is beyond me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Guys, the problem is that this White House has zero credibility, but the WH media continues to cover it like it’s a normal WH. You can’t expect us to ignore our BS detector because you guys still need WH sources.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.