• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No More Anonymous Sources?

The other thing that immediately tips me off that I should take a news article with a grain of salt is when the headline says, "Reportedly". That tells me what follows is something someone says about someone that has absolutely NO verification. It's nothing more than a rumor.

The rabble likes that kind of stuff. I don't.
 
beefheart said:
Deep Throat was an anonymous source....
Click to expand...

Deep throat was used to locate and verify information. That's not happening anymore. Anonymous sources ARE the news in and of itself now.
 
BillRM said:
So Nixon should had been allow to have a full second term as Deep throat information would had been worthless and not reported on?
Click to expand...
That was actual investigative journalism (remember that?). I’m talking about party-political gossip here. The lies, fraud and corruption within the media industry have made it more difficult for legitimate uses of anonymous sources to be made but that’s all the more reason to recognise the difference and discourage the latter use.
BillRM said:
With out such sources how does the American people learn what the government is doing in our name for that matter.
Click to expand...
We don’t learn with them either. You can read all the tabloid trash you want quoting “anonymous sources”, you’ll come out knowing as much about what the government is actually doing than you started.
 
Aren't all polls fake according to Trumpers?
 
Mycroft said:
The other thing that immediately tips me off that I should take a news article with a grain of salt is when the headline says, "Reportedly". That tells me what follows is something someone says about someone that has absolutely NO verification. It's nothing more than a rumor.

The rabble likes that kind of stuff. I don't.
Click to expand...

I thought you believed that polls are fake.
 
reinoe said:
Deep throat was used to locate and verify information. That's not happening anymore. Anonymous sources ARE the news in and of itself now.
Click to expand...

So...it was only OK long ago? LOL

So much spin.
 
DoctorT said:
I opine that, to restore credibility, except in very rare occasions, journalists ought to “take a page” from the Constitution's Confrontation Clause and stop using anonymous sources.

What do you think? Are you in favor or not?
Click to expand...
That would be... not

Anonymous sources are not the problem. They often turn out to reveal critical information, such as the infamous Deep Throat keeping the press informed about Watergate. Any media outlet that ignores whistleblowers is ultimately doing the public a disservice.

The problem isn't even with the press. It's that we live in a polarized partisan environment. Pew published an article on this a few weeks ago:
Americans? Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines | Pew Research Center

The reality is that Republicans have been blasting the mainstream press for decades, reaching an early peak with Spiro Agnew's attacks on the press for negative coverage of Nixon (including years before Watergate). This has intensified with Trump being in office, but the partisan dynamic is decades old.
 
Cardinal said:
Yup. But ludin claimed they weren't, which is a rather remarkable claim.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Generally speaking, they require cross checking with at least two or three sources. This Reuters handbook for example:

"Stories based on anonymous sources require particularly rigorous cross-checking. We should normally have two or three sources for such information."

The Essentials of Reuters sourcing - Handbook of Journalism

More:

"Unnamed sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us, or must represent an authority with direct knowledge. Remember that reliability declines the further away the source is from the event, and tougher questions must asked by reporters and supervisors on the validity of such information.

Responsibility for reporting what an anonymous source says resides solely with Reuters and the reporter. There is no liability or potential reputational damage to the source, making this the least watertight form of sourcing. We should convey to readers as clearly as possible why we believe the source is reliable, and what steps we have taken to ensure we are not being manipulated. This is done most effectively by the way we describe the source. The more removed the source is from a subject, the less reliable the source is likely to be. Reporters and editors should question the validity of information from a source remote from the action.

Be as specific as possible. Negotiate hard with your source to agree a description that is sufficiently precise to enable readers to trust the reliability of our anonymous sourcing. "
 
beefheart said:
So...it was only OK long ago? LOL

So much spin.
Click to expand...
Please try to pay closer attention. Deep Throat's leaks in and of themselves were not the news. The leaks were used to confirm information. Let's compare the difference...

Here's the news today...
some guy claiming to read a memo from some other guy as reported by some guy at NYT.

See how that pales in comparison to what Deep Throat did?
 
Mach said:
Credibility of the news is at its lowest.
Pushed by the least credible right-wing media machine.

You see the irony?

Let's face it, without the public basically having intelligence operatives among all levels of government, those mother ****ers would be hiding so much **** from the public it would be like the dark ages. We want the day to day stuff in the WH to leak, it keeps them honest. The only reason the right is so flipped out right now is because its leaking what a buffoon their candidate is.
Click to expand...
Complete B.S. there was plenty of outrage when the previous administration was literally prosecuting journalists and the Obama admin has attempted criminal prosecution of journalists.
 
DoctorT said:
Hi!

Most Americans would agree that the credibility of journalists is at its lowest. According to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey, “Just one-fifth of adults say they trust information they get from national news organizations 'a lot'.” [1] The low opinion of Americans about journalists is not new. A 2016 Gallup poll showed that only 32% of Americans trusted the mass media “ to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.” [2]

I opine that, to restore credibility, except in very rare occasions, journalists ought to “take a page” from the Constitution's Confrontation Clause and stop using anonymous sources.

What do you think? Are you in favor or not?

Dr. Anthony (DoctorT) Rodriguez

Endnotes

[1] Barthel, M. and Mitchell, A. (2017, May 10). Americans' Attitude Toward the News Media. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

[2] Swift, A. (2016, September 14). Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low. Washington, DC: Gallup.
Click to expand...

I agree. What is happening now is the "whisper campaign" is trying an end run around "due process" by poisoning the water with lies, innuendo, and half truths. But the left's motto in any case has always been "By any means necessary", so no surprise there. They really don't give a rats ass about our system of government, just their idea of how it should run their way.

I suspect the leaks will dry up since Muller is likely to be butt hurt at the drubbing the FBI has gotten under Comey and his "leak a thon" and "reasonable prosecutor wet dreams".
 
Anonymous sources are fine...as anonymous sources. In the recent WaPo article we have 'anonymous sources' providing one side, and the current director of the NSA providing a completely different narrative. Sources should be considered.
 
reinoe said:
Please try to pay closer attention. Deep Throat's leaks in and of themselves were not the news. The leaks were used to confirm information. Let's compare the difference...

Here's the news today...
some guy claiming to read a memo from some other guy as reported by some guy at NYT.

See how that pales in comparison to what Deep Throat did?
Click to expand...

Again, my original post is correct. Deep Throat was a mysterious un-named source.
 
Mycroft said:
I do. What does that have to do with what I just said?
Click to expand...

It means the OP is fake. because all polls are fake. this poll about the MSM is fake. According to Trump supporters.
 
Winston said:
It means the OP is fake. because all polls are fake. this poll about the MSM is fake. According to Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

shrug...

I made no comment on the OP's poll. I responded to his invitation for comments.
 
hanger4 said:
I don't have a problem with anonymous sources pre se ...
Click to expand...

Dear Hanger4,

Thank you for your reply.

I believe that the problem with anonymous sources is that, if someone who has an ax to grind makes a false statement and hides under the veil of anonymity, then there is no way to evaluate the truthfulness of the statement To unveil any falsehood, the public has to rely on the journalists who report it. And, as history has shown time and time again, oftentimes journalists place their personal agendas ahead of journalism integrity. Remember Dan Rather? Have you read the New York Times lately? It is very, very sad that what President Trump calls “fake news” does exist!

Doctor T
 
DrAnthonyRodrig said:
Dear Hanger4,

Thank you for your reply.

I believe that the problem with anonymous sources is that, if someone who has an ax to grind makes a false statement and hides under the veil of anonymity, then there is no way to evaluate the truthfulness of the statement To unveil any falsehood, the public has to rely on the journalists who report it. And, as history has shown time and time again, oftentimes journalists place their personal agendas ahead of journalism integrity. Remember Dan Rather? Have you read the New York Times lately? It is very, very sad that what President Trump calls “fake news” does exist!

Doctor T
Click to expand...

Like I said, if the journalist's uses an anonymous source to investigate toward the truth fine, as the news itself, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom