Newsmax host Rob Schmidt asked Trump campaign surrogate Kimberly Guilfoyle to speak on behalf of Black women after the network reported that Joe Biden would not seek the Democratic presidential nomination.During an interview at the Republican National Convention Thursday, Guilfoyle discussed unverif...
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.
The last half of your comment feels like a really big stretch.
It seems like a bit of a stretch to me as well. But that seems to me to be the thought process of the people who are advocating for an open convention rather than Biden just endorsing Harris and letting her pick a new VP.
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.
I think I agree with that. The media, especially the more right leaning media will always find something to attack Democrats over.
Unverified to you means “verified by a source that prefers to remain anonymous”?
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.
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?
Maybe I worded something poorly there and caused some miscommunication. I was responding to someone equating unverified with made up. What I was trying to say is that it’s unverified right now because the only statements on it were from what seems to be the same primary source(s) that wish to remain anonymous. That doesn’t necessarily mean the reporting is false, only that there hasn’t been a separate source saying the same thing. I wasn’t trying to say “it’s true actually, they just have to say it’s unverified because no one wants to put their name on saying it”
I then separately wanted to explain what seems to be the thought process behind people saying that Biden wouldn’t endorse Kamala going into the convention if he dropped out.