body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2022 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

1. I'm genuinely wondering what the journalistic standards are for Trump palace intrigue stories As a non-journalist who interviews political figures, I'd never think to directly quote someone saying something if I hadn't heard it firsthand

57

205

489

2. If I wanted to convey what Kushner was saying or thinking and hadn't spoken to him myself, I'd attribute it to a source: "According to senior official x, Kushner said so and so, or Kushner thinks so and so." And, in any case, it would probably be paraphrased

5

8

90

3. The people I interview (Islamists, mostly) don't lie nearly as much as Trump administration officials, but I wouldn't trust them—or really *anyone*—to accurately "remember" the exact words of what someone said in a private meeting

7

21

147

4. I remember when I used to interview Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood figures and some hated each other and would talk shit about each other, so the idea that I'd directly quote a member of one faction secondhand based on what a member of the other faction told me would be nuts

3

10

92

5. Again, I'm not a journalist, but if someone told me something so self-evidently absurd (i.e. Trump not knowing who Boehner is) I'd use basic judgment and not include it in any published material, or I'd say "Bannon joked that Trump didn't even know who Boehner was"

13

9

112

6. I mean come on, seriously. The Wolff excerpt, and a lot of what

@gabrielsherman

writes, are silly, fun, and have (some) glimmers of insight, but they can't really be considered "journalism," can they? It undermines faith in the media and contributes to "fake news" narratives

3:20 PM · Jan 4, 2018

Replying to

and

@gabrielsherman

7. Compare–one's from yesterday and one's from 2013 Yesterday: "Ailes had a suggestion: John Boehner, who had stepped down as Speaker of the House only a year earlier. 'Who’s that?' asked Trump" 2013: HEADLINE: Trump, Boehner hit the links politico.com/story/2013/08/ [end]

Trump, Boehner hit the links

Trump says his golfing buddy Boehner is "a terrific guy."

25

17

73

Sorry, one more thing, some folks are responding to this thread and asking me why I'm "defending" Trump. If this is considered defending Trump, then I'm at a loss. If something correct happens to portray Trump in a slightly less horrible light, that doesn't make it less correct

45

41

464

Barnett R. Rubin

Replying to

and

@gabrielsherman

Is defending Trump the hill you want to die on? Why?

1

1

Replying to

how is this defending Trump? This is about sourcing and basic standards of quoting. And whether or not it's perceived as "defending" Trump, I can't apologize for the things I believe to be true and right. That sounds self-serving, I'm sure, but it's how and why I wake up

1

3

Show replies

Replying to

and

@gabrielsherman

You are young. Trump is old. Blanking like that, even in semi-normal elderly, is not so uncommon. Trump constantly repeating himself too (per many sources) should raise a flag of concern for all of us.

Replying to

and

@gabrielsherman

Fair points, but we all need to come to the understanding that this isn’t a major contributor to the “fake news” cries. Those that scream it show no concern for truth. Look at what they consider real news and that should show you what they truly want.

Replying to

and

@gabrielsherman

The media has undermined itself by normalizing Trump, failing to answer standard follow-up questions, ignoring the depth & reality of Russia interference until recently. For these reasons the Wolff book is equally as believable as a NYT article.

Replying to

and

@gabrielsherman

We can read the book and make our own judgments. Pick up things that are believable, questionable and downright absurd. We can call for verifiable sources. However, I would not disregard the entire book simply because of one (or handful of) silly, fun quote(s).

Replying to

and

@gabrielsherman

The medias silence on what is now being deemed "open secrets" undermines journalism more than anything else. Self immolation

Replying to

and

@gabrielsherman

Honestly Im just in it for the entertainment factor, like most everything these days.

5