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
I was just about to make an assumption, Reti, but then I’d be speculating like everyone else! Boy, this new approach takes some discipline!
Repeat after me: We don’t know what we don’t know. And it’s OK.
I think there are two types of people that come from the City of New York.
There are the sophisticates that go to art exhibit openings and fawn over paintings. Paintings that could have been painted by a five-year old. They have mastered the pseudo-intellectual speak of the art critic to master their deep seated insecurity of not appearing sophisticated enough to the rest of the chattering class.
Then there are the Ralph Kramdens’s. Donald Trump is like Ralph Kramden. He came from Queens, not Manhattan. Real estate deal maker, blunt, and outspoken, like a New York cabbie, except all the New York cabbies that could speak English left New York for Las Vegas decades ago. The sophisticates resent his money, and criticize his tastes. Although the master bath décor in his penthouse is what I would call Early Mafia Don, but it is his prerogative and money.
President Obama was a smooth talker, but let’s be honest he was rather aimless, and big on telling people one thing, and doing another, but he loved the sophisticates, and they loved him. Donald Trump is a bit different, he doesn’t especially care what the sophisticates think. He is probably not well read, but President Obama possessed an intellect a mile wide and an inch deep.
It all works, and unless Donald Trump assumes I’m a tourist and tries to take me on the $150 cab ride from JFK to Manhattan I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I would add one other rule: Wait 3-5 days on any issue for the real jounalists to dig in. If there is a story, they willl find it, even if the MSM is too busy getting distacted by the next squirrrel to notice. Until then, it is all talking heads and vaporous bloviating.
Obama was not an intellectual but he could feign it. He feigned liking America even though he (and his pastor and his wife) hate America. The sophisticates loved Obama for two things: he was liberal and black — so they knew he could not be touched even though he despised most Americans and let us know it quite often.
Please, I beg you, listen to Andrew Klavan’s podcast regularly. Because while you’re assiduously avoiding reacting to the daily diet of Trump scandal ladled out by our “free” press (in lockstep (or is it goose-step?) with the Left), you might be missing the Big Threat: the elements in our society (bureaucratic, academic, intellectual elite, media elite…) who would rule by fiat. They would overturn the will of the people expressed through a free and fair election.
Maybe it’s because they just have better ideas. Maybe it’s because Trump is incompetent and a boor. Maybe they have a lust for power. It doesn’t matter. There are no good reasons — barring high crimes (and misdemeanors, whatever that means) — to depose the president. And, watch now, because even Maxine Waters is dropping the “impeachment” threat. Know why? Because they know it will be more effective to cripple his agenda than to remove him.
Klavan laughed when he said it, but I believe he thinks it’s true, and I know I do. We used to say the Republicans are the stupid party and the Democrats are the evil party. Now, it looks like the Democrats are downright satanic. They sow division and strife. They believe in the Noble Lie (ends justify the means). They are talking themselves into justifying violence. They intimidate and scapegoat. They’ve even taken to poisoning people (see Robert Spencer) If you show up at your group’s events wearing all black and carrying a tire iron, you just might be the fascist.
I’m not scared of Trump. I’m frightened by the destructive force of real evil, and I see it predominantly on the Left — by a long shot. These are not just the lunatic, paranoid ravings of some Midwestern housewife. Plenty of credible intellectuals are saying this besides Klavan. See VDH and Roger Kimball at American Greatness, for example. Don’t miss the forest for the trees. America has not been this vulnerable in my lifetime, and it’s decidedly not because of Trump.
I have to agree on this point. I have a lunch date with @andrewklavan everyday, then “Everything is tickety-boo!”
Klavan has a way of processing the wheat, the chaff, and the lies from the media and the left. He’s a great combination of serious analysis, scathing satire, and hilarity that helps me be more discerning of the lies and the truth.
Good advice – thanks.
Susan! Excellent post with deep research and solid analysis. We have had our to’s and fro’s before, but I’ve always respected your intent to solve our puzzle. Thanks for this post and I add my vote to others’ who recognize and appreciate your thinking. I’ve already had a great day and this post is the topper!
Tom
@Western Chauvinist- “We used to say the Republicans are the stupid party and the Democrats are the evil party. Now, it looks like the Democrats are downright satanic. They sow division and strife. They believe in the Noble Lie (ends justify the means). They are talking themselves into justifying violence. They intimidate and scapegoat. They’ve even taken to poisoning people (see Robert Spencer) If you show up at your group’s events wearing all black and carrying a tire iron, you just might be the fascist.”
You forgot the (illegal) face masks. I researched the issue, and in Ca. it is illegal to wear a mask to hide one’s identity when engaging in illegal activities.
Interesting! I suspect, though, that Leftist protestors probably get a pass on this in California, because they’re protesting all the right deplorables.
Apathy For The Win!!!
But seriously, this is what I usually do with Presidents. Yes, even with Obama. Because life is too short to care most about what you can do the least about.
Occasionally, like in the run up to ObamaCare’s passage, I get politically involved – and when I do get involved, I get into the epistemic weeds, because I’m like that. But aside from that, why pay attention unless occasionally for the sheer humor value?
There’s so much more to the conservative outlook than rooting for – or booing – the attention-whoring baboons known as politicians.
An excellent piece. I am English and live in the UK. I have the dubious pleasure of picking up the majority of commentary on US politics through the British press and the BBC. Journalists and journalism being essentially lazy, most of the commentary over here is picked up from US news sources. That means a repetition of the same hysterical outbursts and tired tropes about Donald Trump but overlaid with the condescension at which my countrymen of a certain class are past masters. It is heartening to read that not everyone in the US sees every day as a new crisis and every presidential announcement as a supposed challenge to the body politic.
Thank you Susan, for your wisdom and your extraordinary ability to see both sides of an issue, and even to readjust your own position based on that analysis. I pray for some of it to rub off on me!
Now there’s an interesting topic: who are the “real journalists”? I’m serious. I’ve gotten so paranoid, skip, that I’m skeptical about the writers that I like and appreciate. They often don’t like Trump and it’s hard to know, even after 3-5 days, whether they’ll have legitimate data. Anyone have any thoughts on who you trust?
Thanks for the advice, WC. I will try to listen to Klavan again. The couple of times I’ve tried, I’ve had to turn him off; I’m annoyed by his snarkiness, even if he’s right. I don’t find it helpful. But I’ll try. Also, I think anytime Maxine Waters shows up, dive for cover. she is a nightmare. (I lived in CA, remember.) I do think the dangers are there, but I still have a hard time believing that they will be able to impeach. I’m holding that thought.
So you like Klavan, too, Jules? Okay, I’ll listen in.
Thanks, TW. I feel the same way about you. Even when we differ, you are always polite and kind.
That will be my new mantra, Rodin. Thanks!
Ah, thanks, P! I’m really overwhelmed at the positive and kind feedback, especially from those I’ve grown to like and respect. It encourages me to keep seeking the truth and writing about that experience.
Excellent and thorough analysis ( for a lay person), Susan. This is what I call reasoned and objective. You have now officially “un-succumbed” to the lies and innuendo of the media and Trump detractors. Our President is far from perfect. But he is far superior to what the Democrats were offering. Trumps actions, thank God, far outdistance his words…although his speech at the Arab summit this weekend was outstanding.
Thanks, cdor. You were another one who made me think about my views. I’m so glad it’s official!! ;-)
I don’t know enough to say This Source or That Source in general terms, other than to say that at this point I rarely trust the first out of the gate on anything. Best advice I can give is to find sources you know to be reliable on certain subjects, then also find (though it sounds strange to say so) opinion writers you have found to be reliable in terms of identifying trends and patterns when it comes to subject matters out of your wheelhouse.
Case in point on myself – I know firearms laws, European history, abortion issues, some economics, and business matters pretty well and can judge for myself where such news sources are reliable. I have a strong science and engineering background too, and can smell BS on general science issues, but some advanced subjects are out of my depth. So on those issues I can (with some degree of success) make my own judgements on what is or is not likely to be true. Outside of those subjects (and a few others), though, and I try to read as many different views as I can, and over time I discard those writers and outlets who are most consistently wrong.
Ultimately it’s subjective – you have to play to your strengths when discerning the news, but you do have to watch for the Jeremiads who are always predicting doom. Getting 1 prediction out of 100 right may make you famous, but it doesn’t make you less of a crank.
Also – we all have to watch for our own confirmation bias in reading the news. It’s easy to find things that confirm your doubts or assumptions. To go back to your earlier essay, I do not care for Trump’s temper or tweeting, and I too get twitchy when he goes off script. My solution there is to just ignore that stuff and follow the man’s actions (as I did with Bush, Clinton, and Obama). We need to look at the results, and for that we need patience. I won’t say that we need to keep faith in the man, though, because for me that goes too far. I never put faith in people I do not know personally.
I guess to some extend I’ve been doing this myself–European history, Israeli history, and other areas I’m familiar with, and I do look to certain people to give reliable input. This is good for everyone to consider. It makes us pay attention to what we know, what we hear, and what we choose to accept. It’s more work–and I think that’s why I’ve gotten lazy–but to be a responsible consumer of the news, we have to do the work. Thanks, skip.
Totally agree. The only way I know about DT’s tweets is by reading/listening to Ricochet. For heaven’s sake, get off of Twitter! It’s such a cesspool. Even our own, dear, Ricochet has been tainted by it (inadvertently). If it weren’t for mass (social) media and we were just watching the effects of DT’s presidency, I think we conservatives would be pretty pleased with what he’s done and is trying to do.
As to trustworthy news sources, there’s a scant handful of “real” journalists, imo — the people who go out and research their own stories and write them up with a watchful eye toward their own bias. FOX’s James Rosen is one. Mollie Hemingway is another (although she’s mostly reporting on what a crappy job the media is doing. She’s doing yeoman’s work trying to save the credibility of her own profession). I’m sure there are others, but apart from political commentators (not journalists), I can’t think of them at the moment.
I think one of the wonderful turn of events that I have been fortunate enough to witness in my lifetime is the proliferation of news outlets. In the eighties and nineties, the New York Times seemed to rule the world. I admire the NYT still, but I am so glad that they are not the only game in town. Their influence has lessened considerably.
A few years ago I read a really fantastic book on the evolution of modern-day news outlets, and I would recommend this to anyone for a delightful story: Stephen Shepard, Deadlines and Disruption: My Turbulent Path from Print to Digital (2012).
The author was the editor-in-chief of BusinessWeek (now Bloomberg Businessweek) for twenty years. He was (is?) the dean of the City University of New York (CUNY) journalism school. A very witty guy who tells some wonderfully warm stories about coming of age in New York City.
This is one of my all-time favorite books. It is in the business section of bookstores, and I think that is too bad. It is mostly a memoir.
We are in a delightful new age of journalism. The media consists of so many excellent sources today that the paradigm has now shifted for those who seek to influence the electorate: Where are the people I wish to lead? :)
As a postscript to note 57:
I think Trump’s singular advantage in the business and political worlds is that he keeps up with the fast pace of the news cycle, and he understands how to work with it and often how to control it. All he has to do is change the subject when things aren’t going the way he needs them to.
He is really good at this. Living in New York City for most of his life, perhaps the speed of change has seeped into his being through osmosis such that he understands and can function within the shelf life of events and news.
His mind works at today’s frenetic pace. He really is ahead of his time. That’s why he was able to get control of that 2016 election.
When I got my first computer and word processor, I remember thinking, “I don’t need this to work this fast. My mind doesn’t work this fast.” My old computer would seem slow to me today. We human beings adapt when we need to. I think Trump adapted faster to the Twitter and smartphone world than the other candidates did. I think that’s the advantage he had last year. And I hope he continues to play to that advantage to get some things done such as securing Israel’s safety for the future.
I third the notion of listening to Klavan. I used to think that Rush was the happiest man in conservative commentary, but Klavan tops him.
I am President of the CDOR OPINION CORP. As President I have the authority to duly establish officiality. So, Susan, you are hereby official. Really, there’s no need to thank me. You have earned it.