Thread by @cjscalia

I have to disagree with @TimAlberta here. When I think critically about how Goldberg describes his sources, they smell fishy. He’s often vague about what knowledge they have, or the connection between that knowledge and what they say. For example,...

Sometimes Goldberg says things like his sources “have knowledge of Trump’s views.” Which could cover someone in the administration, sure; it could also mean anyone in the press pool, or anyone who watches the news. 2/

Here, Goldberg does *not* say that these knowledgeable people heard Trump say these things about GWB. It could easily mean that they know his views but someone told them he said this. Such phrasing from an experienced journalist is way too imprecise for me to trust. 3/

And who are the observers here? That word could describe anyone from an administration official to any reporter or pundit in town.

My point isn’t that Goldberg is lying; I believe people said these things. But the vague descriptions of who said them should raise doubts.
FIN

Bonus track! This is a straw man, @jaredlholt. You don't need to believe Goldberg "totally made up" sources to be suspicious about who they are and how he presented them.