Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know how for many of you it is real easy to disbelieve any story with anonymous sources. So I found this link on when we should trust them. Reporters would rather not have to use anonymous sources. It makes it hard for other news outlets to confirm your story if your sources were anonymous. But ffor many stories, it is necessary to go incognito.
Quote:
But major investigative stories, both in Washington and outside of it, are often impossible to write without unnamed sources. The alternative to stories with unnamed sources is often not having the story published at all, rather than the same story with names. Sources have a wide range of motives for not going public. Some reasons are noble (whistleblowers may face retribution for leaking details to a reporter). Some are not (White House aides, both in the Trump administration and previous ones, sometimes don’t like one another and complain anonymously about their colleagues to the press).
It's possible, even probable in many cases, that Trump supporters don't cre if a source is reliable. They just want to make sure their guy in the White House wins. They don't cre about the truth as much as they care about him for some reason.
There have always been anonymous sources, but (to me) there's a difference between using them for a news piece, and using them for nothing other than a smear article. I'd like to see serious news/media stop with this kind of writing altogether, regardless of which person or party it's about. Sad that this is what we've come to.
(And yes, I know it's an OpEd. Doesn't mean it deserves attention.)
There have always been anonymous sources, but (to me) there's a difference between using them for a news piece, and using them for nothing other than a smear article. I'd like to see serious news/media stop with this kind of writing altogether, regardless of which person or party it's about. Sad that this is what we've come to.
(And yes, I know it's an OpEd. Doesn't mean it deserves attention.)
If you look at the content of the letter, it clearly details "WHY" they feel the need to perform as they do. Shouldn't THAT be the topic of discussion rather than the origin of the letter itself.
Can you give at least passing attention to the idea that Whitehouse staffers are having to act in a clandestine manner to keep the man from doing even more harm and do not feel able to utilize their credentials they were supposedly appointed for to even question his decisions.
All of this simply states you support the growth of a dictatorship before your very eyes.
I know how for many of you it is real easy to disbelieve any story with anonymous sources. So I found this link on when we should trust them. Reporters would rather not have to use anonymous sources. It makes it hard for other news outlets to confirm your story if your sources were anonymous. But ffor many stories, it is necessary to go incognito.
It's possible, even probable in many cases, that Trump supporters don't cre if a source is reliable. They just want to make sure their guy in the White House wins. They don't cre about the truth as much as they care about him for some reason.
I know how for many of you it is real easy to disbelieve any story with anonymous sources. So I found this link on when we should trust them. Reporters would rather not have to use anonymous sources. It makes it hard for other news outlets to confirm your story if your sources were anonymous. But ffor many stories, it is necessary to go incognito.
It's possible, even probable in many cases, that Trump supporters don't cre if a source is reliable. They just want to make sure their guy in the White House wins. They don't cre about the truth as much as they care about him for some reason.
As opposed to: "officials said" "official sources say" or "spokesperson says"??
That is all anonymous too. How do you know who is saying what? You don't. Unless they actually print the name. And if the person is official or a spokesperson, the name should be used. Otherwise it's anonymous.
Quite frankly, anytime I say "spokesperson" I assume the info is faulty. Why? Because a SPOKESPERSON has approval to speak. So the name should be used. Every. Single. Time. Or they wouldn't be the organization's "spokesperson."
Un-named sources should never be published. Unless libel laws come into effect on the presses FAKE NEWS.
That's an easy stance to take, surely.
The thing is, the source might be un-named to us, but named to the publisher. It is a fine distinction, that.
In theory, the reputation of the publisher and the reputation of the un-named source with the publisher are what is on the line. Now, maybe you've bought into this "fake news" nonsense. That's too bad. But, it is the reputation of the publisher that legitimizes information from un-named sources.
Now, a purely anonymous source (the publisher doesn't even know) - those I'm more skeptical about. However, I'm probably less skeptical than your average Republican. Trump has done a great job tagging everything that is negative about him as "fake news."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
