Do You Trust Unnamed Sources?

Depends on the media source, their national/global reputation for credibility and using multiple sources, and their comprehensive track record over time.

If the unnamed sources are connected with a news vendor that engages in disciplinary actions when its employees fail to follow journalistic protocol, generally yes. When not, no. There's more to it than that, but that's the gist of it.

Whats the percentage of mainstream stories over the last say 60 years that have come out?

It seems people think this is somehow NEW? its not.
All stories need questions and scrutinized, some more than others but a story being unnamed in general doesnt change anything for me. The publisher itself has more affect.

Waddy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Unless you are talking about something different than what the OP is asking you know what you said isn't true AT ALL. No name sources have been published frequently over the years and by reputable journalist.

This is about the journalist not naming thier sources to keep them privet and protected, you know that right?

I do not trust unnamed sources.

Without unnamed sources we wouldn't have any sources at all, and we'd be virtually completely in the dark. Not a real fine option.

Media people do have a strong incentive that their sources are correct more often than not. Dismissing a source out-of-hand just because of *who* it is is no less partisan hackery than parroting other sources just because of who they are.

AGENT J said:

Unless you are talking about something different than what the OP is asking you know what you said isn't true AT ALL. No name sources have been published frequently over the years and by reputable journalist.

This is about the journalist not naming thier sources to keep them privet and protected, you know that right?

Click to expand...

Yes, journalists have published stories citing un-named sources. But good journalists NEVER rely solely on an un-named source, but make sure their information is corroborated by other sources and other information. Sloppy journalists just go with the un-named source and they often end up looking foolish.

It really depends I think. The nature of the story, plausibility, and if there is any other information that lends credence.

At the end I would probably end up in the "seems legit/doesn't seem legit category. I can't base a position on something someone says who can't or won't stand behind their word. I admit those kind of stories will grab my interest from time to time and motivate me look into it more.

For people like

Polar Bum said:

highly skeptical

Click to expand...

Polar Bum, or any who are reasonable people but are overly suspicious of "unnamed sources", your entire national intelligence apparatus operates on the basis of intelligence gathered with secret sources and methods. The entirety of our ability to have journalists get access to the truth, depends heavily on being able to keep such identities secret. They are not "finding" the truth hidden in the dirt, they are literally getting people who have the information, to share it. And often the only way to even have a chance of doing that, is to keep their identify secret.

It is a rule in the truth-finding profession that lay-people may not be familiar with. Your ability to uncover the truth is greatly diminished if you must reveal sources and methods.
Not only for because people will be able to attack those sources and force recanting, etc., but because for people at risk who see that you do NOT hold their identify secret. They will simply never come forward in the first place. And, the greater good/truth is never served best in that case.

fiddytree said:

prefers reputable journalism outlets

Click to expand...

That's ideal.

But everyone should remember *why* they are able to source original reporting, it's not entirely because they themselves will face repercussions for getting it wrong...although that's a big part of it. It's also their reputation for keeping those sources secret, and being able to withstand literally the U.S. government/president trying to breach those sources. You definitely want a reputable journalistic outlet if you have highly valuable information that you must remain anonymous on. Even then, it's still a risk.

Mach said:

For people like Polar Bum, or any who are reasonable people but are overly suspicious of "unnamed sources", your entire national intelligence apparatus operates on the basis of intelligence gathered with secret sources and methods. The entirety of our ability to have journalists get access to the truth, depends heavily on being able to keep such identities secret. They are not "finding" the truth hidden in the dirt, they are literally getting people who have the information, to share it. And often the only way to even have a chance of doing that, is to keep their identify secret.

It is a rule in the truth-finding profession that lay-people may not be familiar with. Your ability to uncover the truth is greatly diminished if you must reveal sources and methods.
Not only for because people will be able to attack those sources and force recanting, etc., but because for people at risk who see that you do NOT hold their identify secret. They will simply never come forward in the first place. And, the greater good/truth is never served best in that case.

That's ideal.

But everyone should remember *why* they are able to source original reporting, it's not entirely because they themselves will face repercussions for getting it wrong...although that's a big part of it. It's also their reputation for keeping those sources secret, and being able to withstand literally the U.S. government/president trying to breach those sources. You definitely want a reputable journalistic outlet if you have highly valuable information that you must remain anonymous on. Even then, it's still a risk.

Click to expand...

You will understand if I don't have much faith in the National Intelligence Services of the US either....but for somewhat different reasons.

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...

If a well known reporter, writing for an established news outlet writes a piece citing numerous anonymous sources, it's probably true. Not always, but probably. It's far more likely to be true than not.

Waddy said:

Yes, journalists have published stories citing un-named sources. But good journalists NEVER rely solely on an un-named source, but make sure their information is corroborated by other sources and other information. Sloppy journalists just go with the un-named source and they often end up looking foolish.

Click to expand...

Again that is FACTUALLY not true :shrug: Are you from america? how old are you? its done often and has been throughout our lifetimes. I think you are confusing something you dont understand. Many stories come from unnamed sources simply because the reporter wont name them but the reporter knows who they are.

For example. A VP from a company contacts a reporter and gives them some information but says they dont want to be named . . so then that same reporter goes investigating the info they have. they find 2 more VPs corroborate the story and a senior administrative assistant but again NONE want to be named and wont give the story if they are. They also find some documents that support the story.

So now the story is published off of 4 unnamed sources . . . . THIS is VERY VERY common. The reporter doesn't tell us who the sources are but the reporter knows and keeps it a secret to protect them.

Are you claiming that is uncommon and no good reporters do that? Because you will in fact be wrong and show you dont know anything about news. You earlier statement was simply wrong as you wrote. I dont know what to tell you :shrug:

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...

Any publication is welcome to use undisclosed or anonymous sources but they are certainly aware that the credibility of the story may suffer due to the anonymity of that source.
I'm sure there are many credible people who would just as soon not have their name related to a newsworthy event.

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...

If there is two I don't trust, it's NYT and WaPo, but no, I've no reason to trust anyone who won't name a source.

Agent 1; They also find some documents that support the story.

Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point.

Waddy said:

Thanks for making my point.

Click to expand...

Wrong again your claim was still factually wrong, the story would still be based on unnamed sources LMAO
Its ok you simply dont know how news works, now you do

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...

The New York Times employed a journalist who made most of his stories up out of thin air. They also employed a writer who used bad sources, in order to push us into the Iraq War.

Yet people see them as a trusted source for news. Nothing seems to hurt the reputation of some of these media groups, even when they lie and get caught doing so.