Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Shift of Perspective on Trump
This past week I was passionately critiqued by Trump supporters and Trump critics—and it was a significant learning experience. It wasn’t easy to read some of the comments: the Trump supporters told me I was being ruled by my fears and emotions and piling on with the hysterical media; the Trump critics, except for a few people, empathized with my reactions to Trump, but indicated that unless a disaster actually occurred, my complaints and worries were about a potential and to-date unrealized future. (Almost everyone, especially in the latter group, understood my detesting Trump’s tweeting, his misstatements and his boorish behavior.) I also appreciated @iWe’s post on our reactions to Trump, and his reasoning made sense.
I found myself carefully considering all this input, because I was experiencing a dissonance between the values I hold dear, such as cherishing truth and rational analysis, and the pieces I was writing. So my analysis is still limited, and conclusions are few, but I wanted to share them.
When I examined my reactions to the claim that I was “piling on,” I realized these people were correct, even if that wasn’t my intention. I knew on some level that the media reporting was hysterical and unprofessional. So I decided to take one current national issue and examine the tactics that were used to report on it, information that was collected and conclusions that were drawn. The degree to which these journalistic tools were being abused was shocking. I decided to review the story on Trump’s sharing information with the Russians.
I began by tracing when the report first emerged. Every news outlet that I could find reported that the original story came from the New York Times. This was the opening paragraph to the paper’s May 16 story:
The classified intelligence that President Trump disclosed in a meeting last week with Russian officials at the White House was provided by Israel, according to a current and a former American official familiar with how the United States obtained the information. The revelation adds a potential diplomatic complication to an episode that has renewed questions about how the White House handles sensitive intelligence.
This single paragraph has several weaknesses. The first problem is that the writer speculates on a “potential diplomatic complication,” but he has no way of knowing if it will be one. Then he tries to give the story credibility by noting not just one, but two people, who could supposedly confirm the story. The first person is by definition a leaker, who was willing to confirm the sharing of classified intelligence in spite of the fact that leaking is illegal; the person was likely not at the meeting, so did not hear what was said. The second person, who was also not at the meeting, supposedly knew how the information was obtained. Whether either leaker was “credible” is impossible to determine, since we don’t know who they were. To say the least, their motives were questionable.
The next step was to analyze how news sources were so certain that Israel had provided the intelligence information to the US.
Israel is one of the United States’ most important allies and runs one of the most active espionage networks in the Middle East. Mr. Trump’s boasting about some of Israel’s most sensitive information to the Russians could damage the relationship between the two countries and raises the possibility that the information could be passed to Iran, Russia’s close ally and Israel’s main threat in the region.
Israeli officials would not confirm that they were the source of the information that Mr. Trump shared, which was about an Islamic State plot.
Let’s take a look at these paragraphs. First, will this disclosure be passed on to others? No one knows. Also, describing Mr. Trump’s comments as a “boast” doesn’t sound like an unbiased description to me. Finally, it would probably not be to Israel’s advantage to confirm or deny the information.
And then there’s this qualification:
At least some of the details that the United States has about the Islamic State plot came from the Israelis, said the officials, who were not authorized to discuss the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
So how much, if any, of the intelligence details came from Israel? 5 percent? 50 percent? 95 percent? And this comment was also provided by officials who wished to remain anonymous. We have no way of knowing if there were any officials, how high up the chain of command they were, or whether they had direct access to this information.
Then we have another news source that says it wasn’t Israel who provided the information:
According to the report, ‘veteran Jordanian intelligence officials’ claimed that the numerous media reports that the information Trump disclosed to the Russians originally came from Israel are false. Speaking to Al Jazeera anonymously, the Jordanian officials said that they ‘don’t believe Israel has any high level spies’ inside ISIS.
One source told Al Jazeera that when it comes to ISIS, ‘Unlike Jordan, Israel relies on its electronic surveillance collection and its intelligence-sharing arrangement with its Arab partners.’ They also said that Jordan, on the contrary, relies on human spies on the ground who infiltrate groups like ISIS.
Anonymous sources. Again. And one could question the credibility of Al Jazeera.
We then read about Israel’s reaction. One source says that Israeli officials are gravely concerned, and then explains what the Israeli ambassador had to say:
In a statement emailed to The New York Times, Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, reaffirmed that the two countries would maintain a close counterterrorism relationship.
‘Israel has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump.’
In the same article, this comment appeared: “Despite the gaffe, Amnon Sofrin, former head of Mossad’s intelligence directorate, said the issue was unlikely to be touched on when Trump visits Israel. ‘None of us in Israel’s intelligence community likes this event. But I think it can be put aside.'”
The most insightful article was an Israeli opinion piece about a BuzzFeed report:
The Israeli sources that BuzzFeed quoted appear not to have had the high level access to confirm details of the story. The US officials who were the source of the story don’t seem to have more information on it. So what was this all about? Is it designed to make ISIS suspicious of its own people? Is a spy’s life really in danger? Beyond a known laptop plot, what did the Russians learn? Does it overshadow Trump’s visit? Why doesn’t Israel seem to care? We’re left with a tautology: We don’t know what we don’t know.
So what are my conclusions after investigating this one issue? Here are my plans for now:
- I will do my best to ignore Trump’s tweets and behavior.
- Issues identified by “anonymous sources” aren’t credible until they are backed by hard data.
- I will decide whether every “crisis” deserves my immediate attention; if not, I will put it aside in case additional relevant information surfaces.
- If I decide an issue rises to the “serious” category, I will make an effort to investigate the information that supports it. Until it is supported by data, I will disregard it.
I note the additional wisdom of the opinion writer at the Jerusalem Post referenced previously: “When media rely on anonymous sources with unclear or exaggerated access, we are left with more questions than answers.”
I agree.
Published in Politics
This is all very well put, Susan. Thank you.
Thanks, Bryan. I finally listened to you! ;-)
That sounds like an excellent approach to me. I would add that, on #2, information provided by “anonymous sources” is even less credible if it is denied by every single person who is in a position to actually know.
Well said, Larry! And thanks for the positive feedback.
This whole thing has been silly from the beginning.
It appears that the information shared was in reference to an ISIS plot to turn laptops into bombs. Whomever shared this information with us had to know we would act on it, and that acting on it would reveal what it was we thought we knew. Therefore, that couldn’t have been the deep dark secret whose revelation was such a scandal. After that, we were told that Trump revealed who told us. McMaster says Trump didn’t know who told us. The Washington Post made a great deal of their refusal to inform its readers. The New York Times had no such compunction.
As far as I’m concerned, there is no point in paying heed to any story whose sources speak on condition of anonymity. It is impossible to judge their motivations and their likelihood of possessing the information if I don’t know who they are.
Brava, SusieQ!
I don’t understand what bothers you about Trumps tweets (you just don’t think a president should b tweeting?) nor what objectionable behavior he has engaged in. I decided not to engage on this when you posted though, cuz I think you and I had an exchange about this before. And I won’t ask to get into it now.
But, especially with that study out of Harvard showing the unprecedented media bias against him–
Thank you for resolving not to rush to judgment.
Trump is fighting off a coup d’etat.
If he falls, we will never again see a non-politician citizen hazard his or her life and fortune to serve the country.
You are a leader and a moderate voice in our Ricochet community. May your example inspire others.
Wow, my respect for you grows and grows.
Excellent post, @susanquinn. All I ask is for people to take a beat and not assume what’s being reported is accurate — particularly as the media is too invested in a negative view of Trump. I love the story that Jennifer Tilly told on herself: She confessed to her love of the scandal rags, luxuriating in the juicy stories. And then she would read a story about her and think: “That’s not true! Why would they make it up?! These people have no integrity! This is all just garbage!!” Then she would turn the page and read about someone else and be amazed that such and such and so and so had occurred.
There was a time in which we all believed that professional journalists were a cut above tabloid purveyors. That day has passed. Be skeptical, be very very skeptical. If an allegation is true, it will still be true in a few months. If not, why should someone’s reputation be sacrificed for the entertainment of others and the financial benefit of the purveyors of falsehood.
I thought the Brits shared this info, and they also enacted a ban on laptops?
It’s okay, Hypatia. I just don’t like people who brag. Predicting the absolute best anything is annoying to me. He’s found it’s not so easy to do things after he boasted that it would be. It’s a personality thing. So it’s best I ignore those things that bother me because I can’t change them or change him. I’m actually pretty tolerant of different personalities (as a person can tell by my interactions on Ricochet). So I accept that you accept his personality and we’re just different that way. And thank you so much for the kind words. Truly! I’m flattered and touched!
If only every journalist (some on Ricochet) would take your approach.
I find it best to ignore what the media outlets are putting out — much of the hysteria is just that, hysteria. Thanks for your balanced view and your research.
That said, I am disturbed a great deal by what Trump has said and done, and I’m one who ignores the hysteria of the media. I don’t have a problem with him firing Comey – I support it, actually, but the ham-handed, unprofessional way it was done (the guy found out about it via the press because no one had the sense to find out that he wasn’t in town), not to mention having Trump’s defenders go out and give reasons for the firing, only to have Trump undercut them later by telling Holt it was because of the Russia investigation — but the whole thing stinks of incompetence. Not to mention his interview with Holt threw gasoline on the whole Russia collusion thing, for no good reason that I can think of. Nor has the White House denied the report that Trump dissed Comey to the representatives from Russia — NOT our friends, despite his admiration for Putin.
His comment about health care – “Nobody knew that health care was so complicated” – was pretty astounding. Obviously the man hasn’t a clue about the matter, as anyone who has given the subject even a cursory glance could understand that the subject was a complicated one.
And I don’t get the moral equivalence stand he took when asked about Russia – saying that we kill lots of people too.
All in all, a very mixed bag. I’m happy to give him credit where credit is due, and I’m glad he’s there instead of Hillary, but if he gets himself into some sort of impeachable mess, I won’t be sorry to see him go. Good riddance.
And this statement ^ finishes it – regarding the bias and hysteria of the media. Case closed.
This. You know, the print media has always used unidentified sources; I realize that. But with all the exaggerations and lies, I’m not giving them any leeway. They’ve blown it in my book. And you know what? I find I’m relaxing much more about the whole thing, because I feel I’m taking the honorable approach–not bragging, but that’s important to me. Thanks, Rodin.
It’s clear that he’s over his head and his competence is questionable at times. My husband commented that he’s disturbed at the way he has thrown his own staff under the bus. All that is true. We know it because he admits it, at least some of it. We can only wait to see how the future unfolds.
I have always liked you even when disagreeing with you. But, dear Susan, today I adore you and thank you so much for this post. It’s so refreshing to have an intelligent analysis of some of the garbage we are subjected to on a daily basis in the press, and I am constantly amazed by some of our own members who buy it. Sometimes I, too, get annoyed by an inartful comment he makes, and don’t agree with everything he does, but have always respected the fact that he is our president and cannot succeed with all this division within the Republican party. All of us should sharpen our critical thinking skills when it comes to the daily reports from MSM with their constant flow of anonymous sources.
Well, Susan, the future won’t be dull – that much is certain!
Are you going on the NR cruise this summer?
I have seen and heard several reports that have been debunked later repeated as true by the left. We here on Ricochet more or less are political junkies but the great unwashed only see and hear the lie or false report. I believe this is the lefts mission. They are building an accumulation of negativity against Trump not only to placate their base but to try to gain seats in 2018. As you may remember I didn’t vote for Trump in the primary but I have been pleasantly surprised in total. A mole hole is built in to a mountain by the MSM against Trump where as Obama or Hillary would go unreported. When is the last time you heard that Obama spent taxpayer money to try to have Benjamin Netanyahu defeated. When is the last time you heard that Hillary cheated during the presidential debates with the collusion of CNN the main Trump critic. Their actions had much more influence on the election than any fact brought forward regarding Trup and the Russians.
This presumes that Trump critics such as myself give credence to the MSM and buy into their spin. I don’t – it helps that I don’t have cable or broadcast TV. My criticisms of him stem from listening to him, listening to his representatives, and so on. And I would describe dissing the US by making us morally equivalent to Russia — “We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent?” with harsher language than “inartful”.
I agree — if the Left just repeats its story line about the Russians “hacking” the election often enough, they can be sure that a sizeable portion of the population will swallow it as truth. Which is why Trump needs to stop fueling their narrative.
We definitely don’t need to worry about “dull”!No I’m not going on the cruise, Jean. Have other vacations planned and I’m not a fan of cruises. If you’re going, have a great time!
I wrote an earlier post on this, PH, based on Kimberley Strassel’s writing. I’m in the middle of her book The Intimidation Game, and it’s infuriating to see how devious the Left is and how naïve the Right has been. We all have to make efforts to try to communicate the truth–a novel idea!
Just need to remember that there are lots of things we’d like to get Trump to stop doing. But since he’s not listening to us, and apparently isn’t taking his staff’s input into account (or they’re unwilling to say anything), here we are. We can hope he will, but I’m not holding my breath.
The press has this weird idea that only one intelligence organization can know a thing. They are all out there looking all the time.
Watching our vaunted free press try to think gives me a headache.
Now that you mention it, I’m not sure. It’s gotten lost in the dark hole of Trump in my brain!
Nice analysis. It’s all there for all to see. Fake news abounds and is the rule nowadays. Fake news = lies. Let’s start calling it lying news instead of fake news.
I agree with all of that. Trump shows no strategic awareness. He reacts to any and all attacks, and he does so inexpertly. The crack about Comey needing to worry about recordings of their conversations together was stupid if he doesn’t have such recordings, and even more stupid if he does.
Good post.
Recently a friend sent me and some others a link to a very critical article about Trump and asked for comments. This is how I responded.
I get the feeling that this guy — Trump — is this generation’s version of H. Ross Perot, another guy whose tray-table is not in the fully upright and locked position. Perot got roped into running when he shot his mouth off during an interview and couldn’t back out gracefully. Remember his comments about his opponents planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding forcing him out of the race? Can’t remember if it was during his first try or the second. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that Trump just wanted to be king-maker, expected to get maybe 15% to 20% of the vote and then demand concessions from the eventual nominee. Too bad for him that when his campaign caught fire, his ego wouldn’t let him quit instead of getting him elected. Still, he’s better than Jeb! or Kasich would have been. But, IMHO, almost any of the others on the GOP side would have been better.
My friend agreed, but I suppose I could still be wrong about it all.
Susan, your post has knocked my Ricochet stress level from 99/100 down to like 50/100. I may sleep a little tonight! Thanks!!! :D
Good analysis and plan.
I would like to add one other point regarding this quote: “‘None of us in Israel’s intelligence community likes this event.”
We don’t know what is meant by “this event.” We don’t know if it refers to Trump’s behavior, or the news media frenzy, or what.