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.
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.
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.
In the case of Trump and is veteran comments, why would one want to be protected ? I'd want everyone to know, and would be hunting for a sweet book deal on all the stuff I supposedly heard.
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!
As demonstrated here in this instance, yet again, Democrat leftists are relentless, aggressive, unconscionable liars. There is apparently no lie they will not tell. We see fresh examples literally every day. The list of examples is so long and it is growing so rapidly that these examples could not easily be kept track of or counted.
As we see routinely here on this board, Democrat leftists are never so pleased with themselves as when they are lying right through their teeth in the most outrageous and offensive manner that they can contrive. The more people watching them do it, the better in their warped and twisted minds.
Since they have been behaving this way in virtually non-stop, serial fashion for four solid years now, they will certainly continue with their tsunami of lies through at least election day, and almost certainly long after that. It is who they are. It is what they do.
What malicious, viciously nasty, despicable people Democrat leftists have become. How ugly.
Journalism 101 has given way to Journalism Agenda....
Don't think for a minute that "anonymous" cannot also be "fictional".
I have no doubt the propagandists at the Atlantic had 4 real sources. Let's call them Larry, Curly, Moe and Shep.
Larry, "I heard it from Bob who heard it at a bar from someone he didn't know who said he actually heard it."
Curly, "Me too!"
Shep, "I heard it from Curly."
Moe, "Larry told me."
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.
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.
