I just wrote a lengthy post, with links to background articles, explaining why I think the article is credible, which you totally ignored the substance of while quoting a couple random sentences.
I’ll try to make it simple for you: if the article is inaccurate, why hasn’t Fedderman denied it?
And I actually had no idea people were questioning Fedderman’s mental capacity until I saw this thread, so you can take your snotty remarks about my “preconceived biases” into the Pit if you like.
I noticed that your objections were narrowly focused and I should have been clearer. @Tripolar seems to think this is a ratfuck though (do I have that right @Tripolar?)
I trust AP to be narrowly factual, but I tend to distrust their journalistic rigor. I prefer Reuters or even better an outfit that isn’t a wire service. I’ve noticed that many complaints about news articles can be traced to AP. But they’re fast and cheap.
That said, I think you’re being too tough on AP for reasons discussed in Post 56 by me. I wouldn’t say that their claims discussed here have zero evidentiary value, though I wouldn’t weigh them too heavily either. Calibration.
I think it’s plausible that Fetterman banged his hand on the table, but that the meeting didn’t go as badly as the article made it out to be. Also plausible: Fetterman had a bad day, but the meeting wasn’t representative. That’s the problem with 3rd hand stories: much can be lost during the retelling.
Following massive casualties (during events occurring over the past 100 years) Dr Strangelove Doubles Down (in an unrelated SDMB thread). 
I think:
Are both ridiculously weak sauce. YMMV, of course.
I’ll keep my powder dry and see what else – if anything (credible) – we learn.
But this isn’t what happened. The journalists know who made these accusations and did sufficient investigation to feel confident that the the sources knew what they’re talking about. They aren’t taking the word of some rando.
I understand this position, and presume that the journalists in question know exactly who the sources are, but I still view it as:
[anonymous source ^ 2]
Which, in my book, makes it pretty weak sauce.
Happy to agree to disagree with others on this one.
We know that the journalists know the first anonymous source, the one who made the accusation.
Do we know that the journalists know who the source’s anonymous source is, or are you assuming that? If we know that, how?
I’m making certain assumptions, as we all are. I think we can all agree that the articles are not written as clearly as we’d hope.
For the NY Mag accusations, I feel comfortable stating that the journalist are not using an unknown source or relying solely on 2nd hand information. That would be an amazing dereliction of duty and completely out of character for that publication. I cannot prove that, but it’s an extraordinary claim that it’s all based on 2nd hand reports, and the burden of proof is on you if you want to argue that.
For the AP report about the union meeting, I think AP reporters are trustworthy even if not to the same level as NY Mag (remember, reporters have nothing to do with the crap headline writers add to their story). Again, I’d be shocked if that was sourced solely 2nd hand.
The confusion comes from poor writing (or editing). The bit about a staffer being comforted after the meeting is clearly 2nd hand – “according to someone briefed on the matter.” But I don’t think that’s the source for the article as a whole, which many people here seem to be assuming. Later it says “the interaction at Fetterman’s Washington office, described to The Associated Press by the two people who spoke about it on the condition of anonymity…”
That’s a different source than the bit about the staffer (or at least one is, since the staffer bit mentioned a single source). Are both these sources passing on 2nd hand info? It’s possible, but given journalistic standards, I don’t find it the most likely explanation.
Yup. There’s nothing but anonymous sources plus a doctor and associates who may have committed a major HIPAA violation if there is any truth to their statements. No one has claimed to have knowledge specific to an inability to do his job. The reporters could be telling the truth, that someone did tell them these things, but there’s no reason to believe they were told the truth. Nor is there reason to believe they fully understand the context or motives of their sources.
In addition Fetterman and others have denied these claims generally. I don’t see any reason for him or others to address the specifics since part of the ‘ratfuck’ is an attempt to make him discuss the specific claims as if they were credible.
Yep, it’s Pig Fucker Politics. “Make the son of a bitch deny it”.
I agree with you that Fetterman’s denials, or lack thereof, mean nothing to whether the accusations are true. We should read absolutely nothing into whatever he chooses to say about it.
But I do find the reports more credible than you. If I were somehow the one responsible for determining if he is fit to stay in office, I wouldn’t think there is sufficient evidence at this point to boot him. But I don’t dismiss what’s there as solely a “ratfuck” and I think it bears watching.
Sure. But it doesn’t bear any conclusion.
You clearly have a lot more faith in journalistic integrity than I do. The AP has in the past written articles entirely based on what someone said; they’d specified that this is what they were doing with an “- according to a statement released by XXX” or two in the body of the article; but they still repeated claims, that turned out to be false, from sources that they should have known better than to trust. And this has happened multiple times.
I don’t know NY Mag’s specific record, but I’ve seen very few publications that actually uphold the standards you’re describing. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to learned it did, in fact, rely entirely on second hand information.
The assumption I would make, which clearly is different than your assumption, and I suppose that’s fine, is that this isn’t poor writing; instead, I think writers and editors are generally good at writing and editing, and so they are making the strongest possible claim that they can defend.
If the only source they mention is an anonymous report based on another anonymous report, that’s probably the strongest source they had. If they had done additional investigation that verified the anonymous information, they’d say something about how an investigation by their reported corroborated the evidence, even if all the evidence they were able to gather has to stay off the record and cannot be detailed in the article.
Hell, if they did reach out to the people who were at the meeting but no one was willing to talk, I’d expect them to say so.
Writers and editors know how to write and edit. If they have evidence, they know how to mention it. If they don’t have evidence, they know how to make their claims as strong as possible without outright saying they have something they don’t.
If the sources were indeed in the meeting and demanded anonymity, that could have included not even identifying that it was someone in attendance.
In a deep investigative article, you’re right that the writer would typically include some statement about verifying accounts. But not in an AP article intended for mass distribution.
Oh well, we’re all just hypothesizing at this point.
I’m not saying they should be lambasted for daring to publish this or something. I’m just explaining why I don’t give the current reporting much weight.
If we get more information from a reliable source in the future, or if Fetterman displays some of these alleged behaviors in public, I’m perfectly willing to reassess.
There’s an old newsroom joke.
Editor to young reporter:
“Does your mother love you? Get me two sources!”
Not sure if the “two sources” rule is still observed.
It appears that you didn’t feel it necessary to read the article before hysterically denouncing it as doubleplusungoodthink. The article refers to a letter Fetterman’s former chief of staff wrote to Fetterman’s doctor. It would be a HIPAA violation if the doctor had sent this to the media, but there’s no suggestion that happened. Let’s review the contents of said letter as quoted upthread:
“John has pushed out everyone who was supposed to help keep him on his recovery plan,” Mr. Jentleson wrote in the letter to Dr. David Williamson, the medical director of the neuropsychiatry/traumatic brain injury unit at Walter Reed. “We do not know if he is taking his meds, and his behavior frequently suggests he is not.”
Blech, hit post by mistake, to be continued…
He said in the letter that people around Mr. Fetterman often witnessed the “warning signs” his doctor had warned of, including “conspiratorial thinking, megalomania (for example, he claims to be the most knowledgeable source on Israel and Gaza around but his sources are just what he reads in the news — he declines most briefings and never reads memos); high highs and low lows; long, rambling, repetitive and self-centered monologues lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious to everyone in the room.”
So your claim is that reports of conspiratorial thinking, megalomania, and not bothering to attend briefings or read memos don’t suggest an inability to do his job? Because you said “No one has claimed to have knowledge specific to an inability to do his job.” Clearly someone – not just anyone, but his former chief of staff – has claimed to have such knowledge, so I don’t see what else you could have meant by that.
Here’s a long Philadelphia Inquirer article from yesterday. Choice quotes:
Half a dozen former Fetterman staffers who spoke to The Inquirer on the condition of anonymity, for fear of career repercussions working in Democratic politics, said Fetterman isn’t doing the basic job of a U.S. senator. The former staffers described a frequently absent senator, spending many hours on the Hill alone in his office, avoiding colleagues or meetings.
“He is isolated and has damaged his personal relationships,” Jentleson wrote of Fetterman. “He comes up with reasons why they are all out to get him or secretly hate him, and will launch into endless tirades about why they are all terrible and he is the only sane person.”
I think you may be waiting a while. From the Inquirer article:
Public appearances have been rare for the senior senator from Pennsylvania. Since August, he’s appeared publicly only once in the state on a visit to the Pennsylvania Farm Show in January. His visits to Philadelphia, the largest city in the commonwealth, on official Senate business have been even more rare.
Or here’s a video of one recent “public appearance” in which he seems unfamiliar with the basic rules of flying on commercial aircraft, to the point that the pilot has to threaten to remove him from the plane.
(Scroll down, it’s not the video shown prominently at the top of the page)