Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rafraf's avatar

I don't think think the first example is a good example. I mean everything you say is true but ostensibly at least this is an anonymous source covering up his identity, this surely could be considered legitimate.

Again *austensibly* but you don't make a clear attempt to debunk the premise: CNN hired a whistleblower who covered up his identity. As a result it comes across disengenious. As though you are suggesting that a source can't lie to protect their identity.

I don't get it. It would be like suggesting you shouldn't have published Snowden because he lied to his employer (not at all comparable, I know, but that is the argument that I think this article opens you to).

Love your work and wish you all the best

Expand full comment
Jim F's avatar

With all due respect, Glenn, we all have come to this realization. But no one talks about how society should address these issues. And that is what I would like serious and responsible journalists like yourself begin to address. Serious harm is being done by this systemic gaslighting of the American people. A conversation needs to be started about how to counter this in a meaningful and effective manner without sacrificing the protections of the First Amendment. My personal thoughts are is that entities that report "news" (based upon some reasonable legal definition) and that reach some threshhold audience are subject to higher legal standards for truthful reporting & honest contextualization of such reporting, with no limit on who can initiate such lawsuits, and damages set sufficiently high to incentivize lawsuit initiators to hold the gaslighters accountable.

Expand full comment
298 more comments...

No posts