WAPO editor Marty Baron on CBS This Morning discussing sources

Please be kind, this is my very first new topic!

Washington Post editor Marty Baron was just on CBS This Morning and was discussing their recent stories and sources.
Here is a link from CBS with the clip.
youtu.be...
I hope the link posts correctly.

At 2:24 in the video, Marty Baron states "We do not rely on one source..."
At 4:18 he quotes "Because we haven't confirmed that person..."
At 4:23 Marty Baron states "This is what we do, when we can't confirm, we don't report..."
At 4:36 He states " We need more confirmation, that's about all I can say..."

He also thats "We need an additional source or two..."

I may be understanding this wrong, but he appears to contradict himself.

He states they only have one source, they can't confirm that source and they need additional sources. When they can't confirm, they don't report. Yet, they have continuously released theses reports.

Am I missing something here?

Please don't flame me too bad, I'm just trying to contribute for a change.

Also Mods, please move this to the correct forum if I have placed it in the wrong one. I'm a noob.

Welcome New Speak, Goodbye Journalism.

originally posted by: abago71

I may be understanding this wrong, but he appears to contradict himself.

He states they only have one source, they can't confirm that source and they need additional sources. When they can't confirm, they don't report. Yet, they have continuously released theses reports.

Am I missing something here?

Of COURSE he contradicts himself !!

Perfect show for a CBS production.

a reply to: abago71

Yeah, he contradicted himself plenty.

I find it rather nonsensical that he won't name the person of interest because he has no "confirmation" that person is the one being investigated -- except if he cannot confirm who is being investigated, then how can he confirm that anyone is being investigated?

Oh what tangled webs they weave when they practice to deceive!

originally posted by: The GUT
Welcome New Speak, Goodbye Journalism.

Wasn't the WAPO purchased by Bezos? Also, didn't the CIA pay Bezos 600 million dollars for something or another? Makes you want to go hmmmmmm
Especially that the WAPO wasn't very profitable YET a smart dude like Bezos just went "What the hell, I'll buy it!"....

a reply to: abago71

Oh, I see. WaPo has a very serious credibility issue and now they think its time to shed light on how they "report" on stories.

Which, ironically, didnt help their case at all.

Funny you guys say he contradicts himself when the OP lists his answers....
But not the questions.

There's a logic failure in there somewhere.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yeah. Ok...

a reply to: abago71

Yes, you misunderstood. Anything they report requires multiple sources which confirm each other. They asked him about the story stating that a White House insider was being investigated for a Russian connection. They asked if he knew the persons name. He replied that he did, but couldn't report it since he needed more confirmation about the name of the individual. The fact that SOMEONE was being investigated was sufficiently confirmed, the NAME of the individual was NOT. All of the other stories they have published, by the content of this interview, WERE sufficiently confirmed. Only the NAME of the "person of interest" in the White House needed further verification.

On a separate note: the entire 'FAKE NEWS" Trumpies have drunk the cool aid and can't seem to get enough of it. Happy days seem to be here for the hard of thinking!

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: The GUT
Welcome New Speak, Goodbye Journalism.

Wasn't the WAPO purchased by Bezos? Also, didn't the CIA pay Bezos 600 million dollars for something or another? Makes you want to go hmmmmmm
Especially that the WAPO wasn't very profitable YET a smart dude like Bezos just went "What the hell, I'll buy it!"....

Access to info is the new "gold".

Bezos owns WaPo, Amazon, and Amazon Cloud Services which has the contract to service the cloud system for the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies!!!!!

I'm just going to throw in another dot that may or may not be joined: In 2014 the Office of Personnel Management was hacked and every person that works for the government or had worked for the government had their personal information stolen, including, but not limited to, SS #'s, addresses, family members, fingerprints, and in some cases their DNA.

Even people that weren't employed by the government but had been subjected to a background check were affected.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: abago71

At 4:23 Marty Baron states "This is what we do, when we can't confirm, we don't report..."

Yeah, Ok. Like when Russia hacked our power grid. #ing idiots

Ba reply to: abago71

Excellent first contribution!

Be well!

originally posted by: tombaccei
a reply to: abago71

Yes, you misunderstood. Anything they report requires multiple sources which confirm each other. They asked him about the story stating that a White House insider was being investigated for a Russian connection. They asked if he knew the persons name. He replied that he did, but couldn't report it since he needed more confirmation about the name of the individual. The fact that SOMEONE was being investigated was sufficiently confirmed, the NAME of the individual was NOT. All of the other stories they have published, by the content of this interview, WERE sufficiently confirmed. Only the NAME of the "person of interest" in the White House needed further verification.

So what he's really saying is that he can confirm that multiple people are making the same claim. He cannot confirm the substance of the claim, but he'll publish the claim in such a way that makes it sound like he verified the actual substance of the claim, when he really only can confirm there is a claim.

Gotcha.

Thank you for your input and thoughtful answer. I am rewatching the video now.
a reply to: tombaccei

Let me add this from the Wikipedia information in the link I posted above....just to get your brain juices flowing as it relates to this OP:

The Washington Post has also reported that the attack originated in China, citing unnamed government officials.

a reply to: abago71

Where's the contradictions? He states that if they can't confirm a source or have additional sources that confirm the story they don't report it. It's basic Journalism professional ethics. Sometimes after stories are announced, the media may realize they got it wrong and they retract and publically apologize.

As in regular criminal cases, you can't declare someone is guilty until you have enough evidence or "circumstantial" evidence that points in the direction that a person is guilty. The same goes for reporters. If they get enough credible sources and they all check out to that person being at the right place at the right time, and other persons close to the source are saying the same thing, than that is strong enough evidence that the information is credible.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence whether Nixon was directly involved in Watergate. The media back than reported on the possible guilt of Nixon. If it wasn't for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, Nixon would have never been exposed as being involved. It turned out they were exactly right!

Journalists can sometimes get it wrong, just like our court systems. It doesn't justify claiming everything they report is fake news just because they go against someone's support of a president or an elected official. Conservatives loved Comey for going after Hillary, and than did an about face when he was continuing the investigation with Russia.

If we continue to take sides and ignore blatant videos that contradict what a representative says, than people shouldn't be complaining about communism and dictatorship control when that is exactly what they want in their news media.

Excellent first post. You are not confused. The timing of Marty Baron going on TV to discuss the credibility of sources on the morning of the kimdotcom interview about Seth Rich is highly suspicious, IMHO.