Can’t confirm a source? Don’t run a story.

Many people think that I’m Anti-Trump. I’m not. What I am is someone who looks for facts, sees through a lot of the media’s bullshit, and wants politicians everywhere (not just Australia or the US) held to account for the things they say and do (or not do). In regards to the media – one of my pet hates are articles that show little to no fact, make false claims, sensationalise a story, and come across as basic propaganda. Usually (and not always) you find this type of writing in conservative media such as Fox News, Breitbart, Occupy Democrats or US Uncut. After reading an article in the New York Times tonight (for Aussies: NYTimes is usually labelled as mainstream, minimal partisan bias – equivalent of maybe The Australian paper) I have to start wondering where the media has gone wrong.

The article is headlined: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence” and it was all well and good until you get towards the ‘factual’ / source checking part of the article where this paragraph stood out:

“The officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, the identity of the Russian intelligence officials who participated, and how many of Mr. Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself.”

So basically, the source won’t disclose details, won’t talk about what they heard, won’t identify anyone from either side, won’t talk about how many people were involved, and won’t make it known if Trump himself had anything to do with whatever it is maybe, kinda, possibly happened… where is the journalistic integrity in this article?

From my basic understanding of how mainstream non-partisan or minimal partisan bias media work are all sources have to be: credible, all content of the article must be able to be fact-checked by more than one group within the media agency, and all people mentioned within the article reached out to for comment before the article goes to print. None of that happened in this case.

You have what can only be described as a puff piece, with no credible facts, written with the sole purpose to fan the fire of an ongoing political situation. It offered no new facts nor did it serve to make the situation easier to understand.

Don’t get me wrong, The New York Times is usually very, very good but it is starting to get involved in political party bias.

As for the whole Russian scandal, what do I think? Absolutely Donald Trump, his team, and his current cabinet have all had ongoing communication with the Russians before and during the election, and right now. But that’s just my opinion – I don’t write for a major news agency nor do I prescribe to any journalistic ethical or moral guidelines so I can pretty much say whatever I want.

Maybe I’ll get a TV show one day like Tomi Lahren…