• EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    To my knowledge it’s only unverified because the people saying it are doing so on the condition of anonymity. The idea seems to be that they want to go into an open convention with Biden at most saying something like “I have the utmost faith in the delegates to pick the best candidate to be our nominee,” because if he’s too involved in the choice whoever ends up being the nominee will have that looming specter of the narrative of Biden’s cognitive decline haunting them. “How could he pick a good replacement when he doesn’t even know where he is?” and all that.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      IMO, this is being pushed by media, but as soon it happens it is almost guaranteed that they will immediately switch to build rhetoric that democrat voters were cheated and the party just picked up their candidate.

    • Verqix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Unverified to you means “verified by a source that prefers to remain anonymous”?

      • TwistedTree@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Be skeptical of unverified and unverifiable sources. Sure the sources could be anonymous democrats; but they could also be Republican political operatives telling friendly journalists something that wouldn’t be credible if it had their name on it.

        • Verqix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Fully on board with that. It’s why in journalism you see an indicator of closeness make it a more relevant source description. Like “democratic senator”, “someone close to the president” etc. Moreover you have to question the publishers alignment and dedication to truthfullness.

          But if people lack the critical reading skill to already mistake “unverified” with “anonymous source [of function/closeness to the subject] according to [insert news agency]”, that is just trying to find truth in a statement ment to give you doubt.

          Edit: On alignment of the publisher: “Newsmax TV holds a conservative political stance, broadcasting many programs hosted by conservative media personalities. CEO Christopher Ruddy has compared the network to Fox News.”

          Fox News itself said not to consider it actual news reporting.

          Why would a reliable source close enough to the president to know the truth about campaign aspirations go to a Fox News clone?