,
6 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD: I would add: How should presidential reporters deal with campaign sources who use “debate preview” stories to plant dirt that’s never focused on by their candidates in the actual debate? Some examples below in thread.
In this article, Biden sources told WSJ's @KThomasDC that Biden would say other candidates were attacking Obama in debate 3. That was not true -- which may be why Biden didn't say it. Accountability? wsj.com/articles/democ…
@KThomasDC "A Biden adviser on condition of anonymity" told @JenEps - a super credible reporter - that Biden would focus in 3rd debate on Warren's past work as a lawyer. A ridiculous attack -- that never happened. What journalistic norms = that not happening again? bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
@KThomasDC @jeneps CNN's @ArletteSaenz and @jessicadean were told by "an adviser to the former vice president" that Biden would go after the idea of "plans." That would be a really dumb move -- and he didn't do that. But journalistically, why is this allowed so consistently?
cnn.com/2019/09/10/pol…
cnn.com/2019/09/10/pol…
@KThomasDC @jeneps @ArletteSaenz @jessicadean A reporter I respect, responding to this thread on DM, says, "You make a great point. But, how do we know they won't use it?" (Yes, call out the irony of an anonymous quote. That's fine. :) My response...
@KThomasDC @jeneps @ArletteSaenz @jessicadean Response: "Fair question. I don’t know. But it seems like there should be some combo of a higher standard for reporting and a way higher willingness to call out the campaign publicly for feeding bad info and making clear to sources they will not be granted anonymity again."
