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.
The source's livelihood might be at stake? This isn't a big stretch. Observe.
Anonymous source comes out as John Smith, senior advisor to some cabinet official. Smith has since resigned his post and gone to work at a defense contracting firm that has tens of millions of dollars in defense contracts. Smith is "outed" as the anonymous source. Trump pressures that firm to fire Smith. If they don't, Trump applies pressure to cancel or not renew all of those contracts.
It really isn't all that hard.
Anonymous sources are the only reason we ever found out about Watergate. They were invaluable then. The problem now is that Trump just says "fake news!" and 40% of the country believe whatever he says.
The Left and the Media made their own bed as far as that's concerned.
Maybe if y'all hadn't spent the last four years running around like Chicken Little, intentionally misquoting and misrepresenting everything that Trump says and does.........
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,351 posts, read 54,507,973 times
Reputation: 40819
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Do you think it really matters? The media lie and are FAR from professional. We have no reason to believe that an anonymous source is a "protected" source. And, if you don't want your name on something, keep your mouth shut!
I don't think anyone really cares whether it is supposedly known by a "professional" journalist. And, who says the anonymous source is not lying their butts off? The journalist? Surely you know how many feel about the media.
Yeah, I don't care. You put your name on what you have to say, so that those that doubt it can do due diligence or you keep your trap shut!
Notice also that these "anonymous sources" are normally revealed by the Democrats in September of the election year. Far too many coincidences that one would have to be mentally a turnip not to see the light!
Yeah, Trump doesn't bother with 'anonymous', simply prefaces his magical thinking with 'I hear'or 'I heard' ' it virtually everyday without naming any source, anonymous or not.
To clarify, in terms of professional journalism, an anonymous source is not an unknown source. It is not hearsay or rumor. It is not conspiracy theory.
It is merely a protected source.
There is a strict set of protocols that must be adhered to in order to use so-called "anonymous sources" in a news report.
An anonymous source may be used only if:
the source is reliable
the source is in a position to have accurate information
Information received from an anonymous source may be used only if:
it is not opinion
it is not speculation
it is vital to the news report
it is not available except under the condition of anonymity
This is Journalism 101.
We would never get the real story if not for anonymous sources.
Believe what you want: My husband spent his entire career in Pr and the media; he said they never trusted anything that was published anonymously. Some may be true and some not, but still not to be totally believed.
To clarify, in terms of professional journalism, an anonymous source is not an unknown source. It is not hearsay or rumor. It is not conspiracy theory.
It is merely a protected source.
There is a strict set of protocols that must be adhered to in order to use so-called "anonymous sources" in a news report.
An anonymous source may be used only if:
the source is reliable
the source is in a position to have accurate information
Information received from an anonymous source may be used only if:
it is not opinion
it is not speculation
it is vital to the news report
it is not available except under the condition of anonymity
This is Journalism 101.
We would never get the real story if not for anonymous sources.
You do realize that anonymous sources have been used numerous times by the propaganda media against Trump that later were retracted or outright proven false.
Then throw in former/current government workers who told national audiences that they saw information first hand condemning Trump and then behind closed doors under oath with the threat of perjury said that they knew nothing - and any honest liberal must be sympathetic with people doubting anonymous sources against Trump.
Believe what you want: My husband spent his entire career in Pr and the media; he said they never trusted anything that was published anonymously. Some may be true and some not, but still not to be totally believed.
This is why we need to access reporting from sources outside of our personal bubbles.
A variety of sources from both sides of the political spectrum. Always question, always verify.
Very few consumers of news do this.
And some people only believe it if Trump says it--with no source given whatsoever.
Information received via anonymous sources is unverified. In the past, news media has used such sources to legitimately poke and prod to tease out corruption and bad behavior, but the information from the anonymous source by itself was always considered hearsay until proven otherwise. What typically happened next was journalism: You know, that thing that happens when people reporting the news start digging to see if they can verify the validity, etc.
The problem we have now is two fold:
Almost every news media company is a surrogate for the Democratic Party. This was always true to some extent, but the use and abuse of it has become far more blatant since Trump took office.
TDS porn makes a ton of money. If you're in news media and want to make a ton of money, you can do exactly that by completely fabricating stories about Donald Trump. There are tens of millions of people out there in the US and hundreds of millions worldwide who desperately want to believe absolutely anything that is negative about Donald Trump. Just like drug addicts or porn addicts, they have a neurochemical need and there's billions of dollars to be made for whoever can get these junkies their next fix. To make matters worse, the person lying through their teeth claiming to verify/validate the false information also stands to win instant fame and stupid amounts of money too.
The news media has been caught over and over lying about things that Trump said are on publicly available recorded video or audio. To this day, they're still running with "good people on both sides" and conveniently skipping over the part where he said "And I'm not talking about Nazis and white supremacists. They should be condemned totally." If they're lying to you about statements that everyone has access to and everyone can go double-check, why wouldn't they lie about unverifiable anonymous sources?? You have to take their word for it, and their word isn't worth much these days.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,863 posts, read 12,705,334 times
Reputation: 10582
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
if we're talking about the French cemetery incident, then how was it determined that the source was reliable, and in a position to have accurate information?
at what point is someone considered reliable? They've given you 5 pieces of information in the past, all of which were corroborated by someone on the record? Or they gave you 5 pieces of info which were merely stashed away by the writer until they all showed to be true? And so now, this source is "reliable"?
What is "in a position to have accurate information"? Wouldn't it be "present at the time of the action occurring"? Otherwise, it's clearly hearsay and cannot be relied upon.
If John Bolton was "in the room", would have been privy to comments, and denies it ... what would HE have to gain by lying to protect Trump?
Apparently he was not the only one who was "in the room" but didn't hear the comments.
"Originally Posted by AguaDulce View Post
To clarify, in terms of professional journalism, an anonymous source is not an unknown source. It is not hearsay or rumor. It is not conspiracy theory.
It is merely a protected source.
There is a strict set of protocols that must be adhered to in order to use so-called "anonymous sources" in a news report.
An anonymous source may be used only if:
the source is reliable
the source is in a position to have accurate information
Information received from an anonymous source may be used only if:
it is not opinion
it is not speculation
it is vital to the news report
it is not available except under the condition of anonymity
This is Journalism 101.
We would never get the real story if not for anonymous sources.
You are correct, but no Trumper is going to acknowledge that.
You don't have to be a "trumper" to recognize that anonymous sources either can lie or because of PDS (presidential derangement syndrome) hear things the way they would like to hear them.
To clarify, in terms of professional journalism, an anonymous source is not an unknown source. It is not hearsay or rumor. It is not conspiracy theory.
It is merely a protected source.
There is a strict set of protocols that must be adhered to in order to use so-called "anonymous sources" in a news report.
An anonymous source may be used only if:
the source is reliable
the source is in a position to have accurate information
Information received from an anonymous source may be used only if:
it is not opinion
it is not speculation
it is vital to the news report
it is not available except under the condition of anonymity
This is Journalism 101.
We would never get the real story if not for anonymous sources.
Believe what you want: My husband spent his entire career in Pr and the media; he said they never trusted anything that was published anonymously. Some may be true and some not, but still not to be totally believed.
Thats why he was in PR.
SO was my daughter. On Madison Avenue. When it dawned on her that PR was the only profession whose
code of ethics advocated lying she quit.
She got another masters and became a pre school teacher. Huge pay, but she can sleep at night.
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.
