jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (9 posts)

Do you believe news stories with "unnamed" sources?

  1. RJ Schwartz profile image93
    RJ Schwartzposted 8 months ago

    Do you believe news stories with "unnamed" sources?

    Seems as if most news stories are based on the "so-called" reports of "former officials who wish to remain unnamed" or "anonymous sources at high levels" or something similar.  This type of reporting is optimal it seems for a media intent on leading the public in one direction or another, but is it working?  Are you as a consumer of news willing to believe things without a real person to attribute it to?

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13550871_f260.jpg

  2. lisavollrath profile image95
    lisavollrathposted 8 months ago

    Well, a lot of the stories surrounding Watergate were first based on information unnamed sources, so yeah, I'm open to listening.

    There are a lot of people out there who can't, or won't, talk on the record, because they'd be putting their jobs, or their lives, in jeopardy.

  3. thecrookedbell profile image71
    thecrookedbellposted 8 months ago

    No.  The Washington Post and the NYT's have a history of false reporting.   Their allegiance is for the Democrat party and not the Nation or even their own repetition.

    A real news agency prints facts.  Not he said, she said.    But as we all know, those two newspapers sold their souls long ago.

    1. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      You left out Fox News, et al. Was that by accident or by design?

    2. thecrookedbell profile image71
      thecrookedbellposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Design.   Fox News does not cater to the left.

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image93
      RJ Schwartzposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      No, up until just recently Fox catered to the Right....

  4. MizBejabbers profile image90
    MizBejabbersposted 8 months ago

    Ralph, having been a reporter, I'm going to straddle the fence on this one. No use repeating Lisa's answer because she is right about people's livelihood, reputations, and even their lives can sometimes depend on remaining anonymous.  But there is a BUT here. Reporters have gone to jail  for contempt of court for refusing to reveal a source, so herein lies the lesson. Let a judge jail or threaten to jail the reporter, and if he/she stands his or her ground and stays in jail, then the information is probably valid, and I say believe it and lay off. But if the reporter sings like a songbird upon going to jail, or the threat of going to jail, the source becomes public and can be investigated for validity. But as long as the unnamed source stays unnamed without any repercussions against the accuser or reporter, I would think the evidence is not on the side of justice.

    Also consider that "certain officials" or any official takes an oath of office to be honest and truthful. Is that person honoring that oath by demanding anonymity?

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image93
      RJ Schwartzposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      No offense to your prior occupation, but doesn't it seem that a disproportionate amount of todays news comes from these unnamed sources, which never seem to get verified?

    2. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      R. at one time I was proud to be a reporter because we were taught integrity and impartiality. I noticed a change in attitude beginning while I was getting my MA in journalism in the early 1990s. I have to agree with you.

 
working