Seriously! Also, stop bringing failed sell outs with muslim brotherhood ties like McCain out and calling him, "foreign policy expert". Bull crap foreign policy failure and chicken head when it comes time to be a chicken head. #getridofcainmccain.
As a reporter myself, anonymous sources come in handy when it comes to breaking deeply hidden stories, especially ones that the source could be killed for releasing, or possibly go to jail. With that said, when the NYT uses 30+ anonymous sources, that tells me they have no idea what they're saying is true and are wholly unable to properly substantiate the claim. The overuse of these anonymous sources is absurd.
I never said it can't be abused. Of course it can. In my previous comment I went over this. Anyone can make anything up. But that's not to say that anonymous sources aren't useful when breaking really secretive stories. For example, the anonymous police sources that have spoken to the private investigator in the Seth Rich case and have made it clear that the FBI insisted the police stop looking into the case.
Or the countless Wikileaks sources over the years who've been anonymous.
Or the Clinton rape victims. Or the CIA anonymous sources who came out about Obama, or came out about the Kennedy assassination. These are all necessary anonymous sources.
Like I said, the ones the WP and NYT are using are ridiculous because they're clearly just making things up to cause an uprising, but still, that's not to say anonymous sources aren't useful. I'm using them right now for a report coming up. Legit anonymous sources that are going to blow a whole corrupted government monopoly out of the water. Without those sources I wouldn't have a story, but if I named the sources, they could go to jail or lose their jobs.
It should be noted that anonymous sources are sometimes verified but not directly referred to. There is sometimes a protocol of secondary verification whilst protecting the source.
The use of anonymous sources in the Nixon in watergate is a good example of a fine line often being sought by editors.
I'm not sure what mainstream liberal media you are referring to, but generally the press can't get away with just making stuff up - as editors will pay a heavy price. Of course decentralised news, is a different category.
Sure, but in principle would you rather the press kept something to themselves if they could not directly reference the source - even if others could vouch for it. Surely more knowledge (with or without the source) gives the reader more empowerment than hiding knowledge.
I don't follow American media so can't really comment. I think its a matter of editor and reputation which these liberal media outlets appear to be losing.
EDIT: this conversation has made me post this question - about how user vetted quality content (like steemit) could help combat fake news.
Seriously! Also, stop bringing failed sell outs with muslim brotherhood ties like McCain out and calling him, "foreign policy expert". Bull crap foreign policy failure and chicken head when it comes time to be a chicken head. #getridofcainmccain.
McCain is a sellout globalist. He seriously needs to retire.
As a reporter myself, anonymous sources come in handy when it comes to breaking deeply hidden stories, especially ones that the source could be killed for releasing, or possibly go to jail. With that said, when the NYT uses 30+ anonymous sources, that tells me they have no idea what they're saying is true and are wholly unable to properly substantiate the claim. The overuse of these anonymous sources is absurd.
And you don't think using "anonymous sources" could be abused ? Especially when the media are desperate to keep a story going or make news?
I never said it can't be abused. Of course it can. In my previous comment I went over this. Anyone can make anything up. But that's not to say that anonymous sources aren't useful when breaking really secretive stories. For example, the anonymous police sources that have spoken to the private investigator in the Seth Rich case and have made it clear that the FBI insisted the police stop looking into the case.
Or the countless Wikileaks sources over the years who've been anonymous.
Or the Clinton rape victims. Or the CIA anonymous sources who came out about Obama, or came out about the Kennedy assassination. These are all necessary anonymous sources.
Like I said, the ones the WP and NYT are using are ridiculous because they're clearly just making things up to cause an uprising, but still, that's not to say anonymous sources aren't useful. I'm using them right now for a report coming up. Legit anonymous sources that are going to blow a whole corrupted government monopoly out of the water. Without those sources I wouldn't have a story, but if I named the sources, they could go to jail or lose their jobs.
Yes, definitely leaves the door open for misinformation, as it usually always is. Ive given up on the mainstream alligators :-)
It should be noted that anonymous sources are sometimes verified but not directly referred to. There is sometimes a protocol of secondary verification whilst protecting the source.
The use of anonymous sources in the Nixon in watergate is a good example of a fine line often being sought by editors.
I'm not sure what mainstream liberal media you are referring to, but generally the press can't get away with just making stuff up - as editors will pay a heavy price. Of course decentralised news, is a different category.
Not verified by me the reader !
Hell it could be some kid in school making shit up. Who knows..
Sure, but in principle would you rather the press kept something to themselves if they could not directly reference the source - even if others could vouch for it. Surely more knowledge (with or without the source) gives the reader more empowerment than hiding knowledge.
No. All I'm saying it's it looks like they are abusing using "anonymous sources" for everything Trump related.
I don't follow American media so can't really comment. I think its a matter of editor and reputation which these liberal media outlets appear to be losing.
EDIT: this conversation has made me post this question - about how user vetted quality content (like steemit) could help combat fake news.
They have been making stuff up for years. Look at Plato's cave, the animated version is easiest for most.