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.
Watergate was revealed by an anonymous source. This stupid ideal will kill whistleblowers everywhere. If you 100% trust the government to do everything right for you, then absolutely you should be for this.
You are correct. However, how can you trust a source if you have know idea where the information is coming from?
Agree 100%. Almost always these unnamed sources turn out to be activist liars, people looking to sell a story, people craving attention, or operatives telling lies for future gains. If they can't print the source, it isn't news, it's gossip and lies.
but sometimes people are still too overzealous and mistakes are made.
Anonymous sources have always been a part of journalism.
It would be a lot easier to believe they were honest mistakes, if they went both ways in the errors. But, these stories that turn out to be false almost always lean left and are almost always anti Trump.
Anonymous sources have never been journalism. They have always been at best yellow journalism, and usually just out and out lies. That's why everyone understands what Trump means when he says fake news. No one is shocked at the term because the news media has become nothing but a pathetic propaganda machine.
It would be a lot easier to believe they were honest mistakes, if they went both ways in the errors. But, these stories that turn out to be false almost always lean left and are almost always anti Trump.
On left leaning news outlets yes. The reverse is true for Fox News and other right leaning ones.
People just need to understand that most of what we get from the mainstream media is spin and bullcrap and that getting a story from CNN or Fox is no more credible than getting it from Mother Jones or Breitbart or my drunk uncle Fred. The major networks really don't deserve their elevated status and privileges.
Your drunk Uncle is hilarious with that lamp shade on his head.
That's the judgement call reports have always had to make when vetting potential stories. You investigate the person and their information and decide if it's correct. If they get it wrong, then the paper/publication looks foolish later. So there is incentive to only print correct stories but sometimes people are still too overzealous and mistakes are made.
Anonymous sources have always been a part of journalism.
This USE to be true. Back in the day we wanted the truth rather than get news fast. Now due to the internet and impressions, it is a race to get the first breaking story rather than a factual story. This has existed since the prevelence of internet. Before it was either watch the news or read the paper in the morning...
Every kid in high school is drilled on how to document their sources and points taken off if they don't. Even here on CD you constantly get people asking for sources and justification on threads, even when the statement is obvious opinion.
Yet somehow "unnamed sources" are OK with journalists and the public. I've seen first hand stories where I knew the real story and it was obvious they just made $%^& up for the sensationalism. I have more trust in politicians than in the media. Because at least I know they're self serving liars.
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.
