There's a difference, though it's one of degree rather than dichotomy.
An anonymous poster is not revealing his or her identity to anyone.
The three people who claimed to be in the room did reveal their identities to the editor who wrote the story, who in turn vouches for them non-anonymusly. He knows who they are, and we know who he is. So there's someone identifiable who has stepped up to risk his credibility on behalf of three people who wish to remain out of the light, and we can attempt to judge his ability to judge his sources' trustworthiness, by his known reputation.
This is not perfect. This is not as good as knowing who those three people are and being able to judge their reputations ourselves. But neither is it a complete vapour like an anonymous-to-all posting -- such as these last two comments here. So I give it less weight than a fully identified source, and more weight than a random anonymous or pseudonymous Usenet article, LiveJournal comment, or graffito. I do not dismiss your comments outright (though that has more to do with your reasonable tone and thoughtful argument than anything else); neither do I swallow the report of Bush's remark without reservation (I am inclined, based on the writer's record, to believe the report, but I don't count this as 'proof' of an event that 'all reasonable people' have to concede happened -- that is, I believe it but acknowledge the uncertainty due to the anonymity and lack of supporting documentation).
Please note that although the President's alleged outburst was the trigger for writing my essay then as opposed to later (and provided a useful rhetorical hook), the meat of my essay -- the actual message and what I worry about -- concerns what is being done more than what he (probably) said. And I'd had those concerns and was looking for a way to start such an essay for quite some time before the report of Bush's outburst goaded me to finally get around to writing it. As I've said, whether he said those words that day or not is secondary: his actions speak louder than even those words could.
(Tangentially ... it's also interesting that the author of the news story later said that what he considered newsworthy about it was that it was evidence of Bush's temper, rather than the idea of a president saying such a thing being shocking.)
But you've sparked an interesting train of thought about the continuum of anonymity-and-credibility that I'll try to sort into coherence and post to see whether my other readers find it as interesting. I expect to get a fair bit of commentary designed to sharpen my thinking on the matter once I get around to writing up the thoughts I'm chewing on.
Re: Truth: what's yer 20?
An anonymous poster is not revealing his or her identity to anyone.
The three people who claimed to be in the room did reveal their identities to the editor who wrote the story, who in turn vouches for them non-anonymusly. He knows who they are, and we know who he is. So there's someone identifiable who has stepped up to risk his credibility on behalf of three people who wish to remain out of the light, and we can attempt to judge his ability to judge his sources' trustworthiness, by his known reputation.
This is not perfect. This is not as good as knowing who those three people are and being able to judge their reputations ourselves. But neither is it a complete vapour like an anonymous-to-all posting -- such as these last two comments here. So I give it less weight than a fully identified source, and more weight than a random anonymous or pseudonymous Usenet article, LiveJournal comment, or graffito. I do not dismiss your comments outright (though that has more to do with your reasonable tone and thoughtful argument than anything else); neither do I swallow the report of Bush's remark without reservation (I am inclined, based on the writer's record, to believe the report, but I don't count this as 'proof' of an event that 'all reasonable people' have to concede happened -- that is, I believe it but acknowledge the uncertainty due to the anonymity and lack of supporting documentation).
Please note that although the President's alleged outburst was the trigger for writing my essay then as opposed to later (and provided a useful rhetorical hook), the meat of my essay -- the actual message and what I worry about -- concerns what is being done more than what he (probably) said. And I'd had those concerns and was looking for a way to start such an essay for quite some time before the report of Bush's outburst goaded me to finally get around to writing it. As I've said, whether he said those words that day or not is secondary: his actions speak louder than even those words could.
(Tangentially ... it's also interesting that the author of the news story later said that what he considered newsworthy about it was that it was evidence of Bush's temper, rather than the idea of a president saying such a thing being shocking.)
But you've sparked an interesting train of thought about the continuum of anonymity-and-credibility that I'll try to sort into coherence and post to see whether my other readers find it as interesting. I expect to get a fair bit of commentary designed to sharpen my thinking on the matter once I get around to writing up the thoughts I'm chewing on.