Dear Mr. Goldberg, give us one name
The Atlantic story took another turn yesterday. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor, said this to someone at MSNBC:
After saying the sources were allowed to remain anonymous because they feared "angry tweets and all the rest," Goldberg elaborated and suggested criticism regarding the sourcing is fair.
Despite the comments, Goldberg also backed up his decision on anonymous sourcing for the article as well as the contents of the story.
"These are people just like other people, and they have this anxiety," Goldberg said. "It is a reasonable question to ask why people who have had direct exposure to Donald Trump, who know what Donald Trump has said, who know what Donald Trump has done, won't simply come out and say it."
"And I share that view that it's not good enough," he continued. "But, you know, like other reporters, I'm always balancing out the moral ambiguities and complications of anonymous sourcing with a public's right to know."
Okay, so the "sources" in the Atlantic story are anonymous because they fear "tweet hate." Wow — sensitive, aren't they? Give us their Twitter names so we can see if they've tweeted anything hateful about Trump.
And the public's right to know? Doesn't the public have the right to know if a partisan or partisans are behind an accusation of this nature against the commander in chief? After all, President Trump is accused of talking about U.S. soldiers buried at a cemetery, not Red Sox fans angry that they sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees.
So here is my offer to Jeffrey Goldberg. Just give us one name, and we promise not to hurt his feelings on Twitter.
Image: The Atlantic.