• 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!

Do You Trust Unnamed Sources?

Do You Trust Unnamed Sources?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • No

    Votes: 15 38.5%

  • Depends

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • Total voters
    39
Winston

Winston

Advanced stage dementia patient pls support my run
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,673
Reaction score
24,020
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Been a lot of denial of reporting based upon the mystery of who told the story. It's a fair question, really. If someone told me a damaging story about someone I loved, I would contemplate it thoroughly and do some fact-checking and research before I acted.

So, I know people on the right don't believe MSNBC about anything, rightly so. And people on the left, don't believe FOX News about anything, rightly so.

But, what about when The New York Times or the Washington Post reports a story based around an anonymous source? Do you trust a publication risking their reputation on an anonymous source?

Anyway, just curious.
 
Winston said:
Been a lot of denial of reporting based upon the mystery of who told the story. It's a fair question, really. If someone told me a damaging story about someone I loved, I would contemplate it thoroughly and do some fact-checking and research before I acted.

So, I know people on the right don't believe MSNBC about anything, rightly so. And people on the left, don't believe FOX News about anything, rightly so.

But, what about when The New York Times or the Washington Post reports a story based around an anonymous source? Do you trust a publication risking their reputation on an anonymous source?

Anyway, just curious.
Click to expand...

I find any story based upon "unnamed sources" to be highly suspect.

To my way of thinking its no different than a religious figure telling the masses that "You have to take it on faith, and if you dare question my version, you are a heretic".
 
Polar Bum said:
I find any story based upon "unnamed sources" to be highly suspect.

To my way of thinking its no different than a religious figure telling the masses that "You have to take it on faith, and if you dare question my version, you are a heretic".
Click to expand...

I disagree and apologize for the black and white nature of the poll.

There is nuance to be seen here.

Unsubstantiated allegations of past behavior by someone with an axe to grind is highly suspect.

However, in the case of some reporting of events that happened recently, some people have an absolute necessity to remain anonymous for fear of losing their position.
 
Shucks, there are times I don't even trust named sources...most times...
 
Winston said:
I disagree and apologize for the black and white nature of the poll.

There is nuance to be seen here.

Unsubstantiated allegations of past behavior by someone with an axe to grind is highly suspect.

However, in the case of some reporting of events that happened recently, some people have an absolute necessity to remain anonymous for fear of losing their position.
Click to expand...

I don't know how it works in other Nations, but I believe in the US a person a right to face their accuser......media, individual, etc.

In cases such as this, I believe "journalistic integrity" must come before "journalistic priviledge" ....otherwise you set the stage for "guilty" based upon nothing more than "They said".....and the public is expected to take it at face value?

I think not.
 
I tend to like traditional mainstream press (largely newspapers) using unnamed sources and wonder about most everyone else when they do it. I tend to like people who have training and receive repercussions for getting it wrong.
 
Polar Bum said:
I don't know how it works in other Nations, but I believe in the US a person a right to face their accuser......media, individual, etc.

In cases such as this, I believe "journalistic integrity" must come before "journalistic priviledge" ....otherwise you set the stage for "guilty" based upon nothing more than "They said".....and the public is expected to take it at face value?

I think not.
Click to expand...


Journalistic integrity means publishing the truth, not necessarily the names of the source.
 
JMR said:
Journalistic integrity means publishing the truth, not necessarily the names of the source.
Click to expand...

And we are expected to accept the "truth" as the media portrays it with nothing more to go on than "unnamed sources"?

Has the bar to journalism really been set so low?
 
JMR said:
Journalistic integrity means publishing the truth, not necessarily the names of the source.
Click to expand...

However when the track record on truth is poor naming the source is a good idea if you want to be taken at all seriously.
 
Polar Bum said:
And we are expected to accept the "truth" as the media portrays it with nothing more to go on than "unnamed sources"?

Has the bar to journalism really been set so low?
Click to expand...

We are to accept the truth as the media portrays it on the basis of their journalistic integrity over time. That is where the bar has always been.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
However when the track record on truth is poor naming the source is a good idea if you want to be taken at all seriously.
Click to expand...


If the track record on the truth is poor, their is no undoing that damage.
 
JMR said:
We are to accept the truth as the media portrays it on the basis of their journalistic integrity over time. That is where the bar has always been.
Click to expand...


No, "We" are not.....though, you, are of course free to believe whatever the media places in front of you.

I prefer to do my own due diligence.
 
Polar Bum said:
No, "We" are not.....though, you, are of course free to believe whatever the media places in front of you.

I prefer to do my own due diligence.
Click to expand...

Cute. I answered your question in the framework of your words. Good luck with the diligence.
 
Winston said:
Do you trust a publication risking their reputation on an anonymous source?
Click to expand...

No. Period.
If an anonymous source claims something, it needs to be independently verified before it can be taken seriously.
In other words, anonymous sources can be indicators and mandate further investigation, but they are never enough by themselves.
 
Winston said:
Been a lot of denial of reporting based upon the mystery of who told the story. It's a fair question, really. If someone told me a damaging story about someone I loved, I would contemplate it thoroughly and do some fact-checking and research before I acted.

So, I know people on the right don't believe MSNBC about anything, rightly so. And people on the left, don't believe FOX News about anything, rightly so.

But, what about when The New York Times or the Washington Post reports a story based around an anonymous source? Do you trust a publication risking their reputation on an anonymous source?

Anyway, just curious.
Click to expand...

I do, because WaPo and NYT usually have many, many sources for their pieces. It's not like, "Bobby Joe's cousin come in last week and told me that Sue Ellen slept with Robert Earl."

You have to be able to trust unnamed sources, if there are enough sources to back up the story. You have to. Otherwise the news media will just die out. Nobody will ever go on record for fear of retribution or retaliation.

Oddly enough, this whole "fake news" and "unnamed sources suck" was never a real issue until this last year. Wonder why that is?
 
Superfly said:
I do, because WaPo and NYT usually have many, many sources for their pieces. It's not like, "Bobby Joe's cousin come in last week and told me that Sue Ellen slept with Robert Earl."

You have to be able to trust unnamed sources, if there are enough sources to back up the story. You have to. Otherwise the news media will just die out. Nobody will ever go on record for fear of retribution or retaliation.

Oddly enough, this whole "fake news" and "unnamed sources suck" was never a real issue until this last year. Wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

Actually...I believe the problem predates our current POTUS, but I do think his ranting has shed more light on the issue.

This article ( one of many you can find on a quick google search) was written in 2013, and lists more than a few stories based upon "unnamed sources" that go back well before Trump was even in the running for POTUS.

I think that through a combination of trumps tirades, news medias self inflicted wounds, the badly bombed election predictions, and many stories that are just plain BS ( I think "conflated" is the new buzzword ), is it any wonder the public holds the media in such low regard?

I think its rather telling when your approval rating is just slightly above congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...04fefa61ee6_story.html?utm_term=.b94d7ac5ae56
 
Last edited:
I would never trust a story based on an anonymous source. No journalist worth his salt would publish a story based on an anonymous source. Every story should be corroborated by other sources, and every fact checked and confirmed by more than one source. In the rush to be first with a story, journalistic best practices have been tossed aside and stories printed with the thinnest veneer of authentication. That's why no one believes the MSM anymore; they can't be trusted to get the story right before they go in front of the cameras. And that's why they get burned.

BTW; Trump is playing you people like a fiddle; read some of Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert comic strip) and authority on the science of persuasion.
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
Do you trust a publication risking their reputation on an anonymous source?
Click to expand...
It’s not a simple yes/no question and it’s not just about the naming or not of a source. How much credence I might give a particular news report will depend on a whole range of factors (including an unavoidable element of subconscious emotional bias).

I do think that sometimes too much attention can be given to a phrase like “… who didn’t wish to be named… “ when there are a whole load of other sources, some anonymous and some theoretically identified, which should be open to just as much scrutiny. For example, more credit might be given to a named politician rather than anonymous staff despite the fact that the politician has a clear bias and vested interest where the staff might not.
 
Winston said:
Been a lot of denial of reporting based upon the mystery of who told the story. It's a fair question, really. If someone told me a damaging story about someone I loved, I would contemplate it thoroughly and do some fact-checking and research before I acted.

So, I know people on the right don't believe MSNBC about anything, rightly so. And people on the left, don't believe FOX News about anything, rightly so.

But, what about when The New York Times or the Washington Post reports a story based around an anonymous source? Do you trust a publication risking their reputation on an anonymous source?

Anyway, just curious.
Click to expand...

Depends on who is using them and how good is their reputation for vetting what was said.
 
Sure I do, sometimes. Deep Throat was unnamed.

Do I always? No. Do I never? No to that too. So my answer was "Depends".
 
To me, "unnamed sources" means it was made up.
Much like someone making a trolling post that only says what they think and nothing else.
But, sadly, I think we are seeing the death knell of responsible journalism every day.
Both sides are moving to the far right and far left and leaving a huge gap right down the middle.

Walter Cronkite...our nation turns its hungry eyes to you.

This all started when the NEWS was included into the TV ratings system.
Now we have NEWS "shows" that vie for ratings rather than just saying what happened.

On the up side, it gave us some pretty strikingly beautiful "news babes".
Before is was just men in black framed glasses reading the reports.
Now there is more leg than a Leggs pantyhose commercial.
By 2030 we will probably have dancing dogs, pie-in-the-face, and bikini clad weather ladies.
 
Last edited:
I was taught the APA style of writing in college, meaning any quoted information was sourced and named. In formal writing, such as journalism, I appreciate this type of approach the most. Journalists who do not source their information, including unnamed sources, are merely writing/presenting opinion. Such stories belong on the opinion pages or in opinion programs; and should not be presented as news.

Sometimes unnamed sources are vital to the exposure of information. When a true journalist is presented with such a need, calling out the omission of documentation and subsequently presenting addition supporting factors that are documented helps their cause from a journalistic point of view.

In other words an unnamed source is akin to a salesman's promise - neither are worth much without documentation.
 
Winston said:
Been a lot of denial of reporting based upon the mystery of who told the story. It's a fair question, really. If someone told me a damaging story about someone I loved, I would contemplate it thoroughly and do some fact-checking and research before I acted.

So, I know people on the right don't believe MSNBC about anything, rightly so. And people on the left, don't believe FOX News about anything, rightly so.

But, what about when The New York Times or the Washington Post reports a story based around an anonymous source? Do you trust a publication risking their reputation on an anonymous source?

Anyway, just curious.
Click to expand...

It depends. An unnamed source provided by Infowars for example, I would never trust.
 
Superfly said:
I do, because WaPo and NYT usually have many, many sources for their pieces. It's not like, "Bobby Joe's cousin come in last week and told me that Sue Ellen slept with Robert Earl."

You have to be able to trust unnamed sources, if there are enough sources to back up the story. You have to. Otherwise the news media will just die out. Nobody will ever go on record for fear of retribution or retaliation.

Oddly enough, this whole "fake news" and "unnamed sources suck" was never a real issue until this last year. Wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

Well, part of it, is Obama didn't do outrageous, hard to believe things.

So, when Trump's actions surface, and everyone's like, "Bruh, he did what? For real, that dude is a deranged mental case."

His supporters have to deny somehow.

Shoot the messenger.
 
A very loud NO. Trust has been abused, integrity is questionable. Again, NO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom