General Discussion

MineralMan

(151,606 posts) Sun Jul 23, 2017, 01:52 PM Jul 2017

An Anonymous, Unnamed Source Close to Something Said Some Bullshit. [View all]

And Americans ate it up as though it were automatically true. This is why we fail, ladies and gentlemen.

Anytime an unnamed source is quoted in anything but top-tier, reliable media outlets, skepticism should be the first reaction. And, even if it's in a major news source, it should not be accepted unless corroborated by sources who are not afraid to be named.

All too often, those unnamed sources "with links to" or "close to" or "with knowledge of" or "associated with" are just figments of the writer's or speaker's imagination. They always say what the writer or speaker wants them to say, somehow.

Today, an "unnamed source" associated with Bernie Sanders says he's considering running in 2020. Why is the name of that source not given? It's not shocking news or Top Secret classified information, after all. Who said that? Why didn't Senator Sanders, himself, just say it? Does that "source associated with" Sanders even exist? Who the heck knows.

Why do we buy into this kind of anonymous "journalism?" Why do we not respond immediately with skepticism and questions about the veracity of what has been written?

Sheesh!

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

An Anonymous, Unnamed Source Close to Something Said Some Bullshit. [View all] MineralMan Jul 2017 OP

yeah but anonymous sources are good if it something that support our own views nt msongs Jul 2017 #1

Well, of course. I mean, if we like what was said, MineralMan Jul 2017 #2

This should have been said a long tie ago ......... Kathy M Jul 2017 #3

Oh, it has been, and often, but nobody seems to MineralMan Jul 2017 #4

Long tie? Like the kind Drumpf wears? Have an "m" on me. rzemanfl Jul 2017 #13

Who What When Where Why and How..still the sound and sane basis of professional journalism Guilded Lilly Jul 2017 #5

That credo is less honored now than ever before. MineralMan Jul 2017 #6

Dumbing Down syndrome :( Reality TV/Ratings mentality. Guilded Lilly Jul 2017 #15

Yes, I'm afraid so... MineralMan Jul 2017 #16

That is why it's a good idea to only believe reputable outlets such as the NY Times, etc. Unless kerry-is-my-prez Jul 2017 #7

I pay absolutely zero attention to people like Mensch. MineralMan Jul 2017 #8

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #9

Deep Throat was an anomyous source Nictuku Jul 2017 #10

That is true, but additional reporting MineralMan Jul 2017 #11

But Deep Throat didn't so much leak specific facts as give Woodward hints The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2017 #19

I heard that tRump was going to buy out the McDonalds franchise ProudLib72 Jul 2017 #12

That's the kind of thing on "news" stations that seriously pisses me off. Igel Jul 2017 #18

What's your position on things like "current and former intelligence officials" in a reputable rzemanfl Jul 2017 #14

I look at the publication or organization to MineralMan Jul 2017 #17

And, if a report is something so hot that it should be in a headline The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2017 #20

Yes, and why would some highly-placed source MineralMan Jul 2017 #21

For all the praise she gets for posting bullshit... Orrex Jul 2017 #22

So let's say I'm the guy who repairs the photocopiers at FBI headquarters The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2017 #28

Tell that to Woodward and Bernstein. Woodward was a rookie reporter and many people pnwmom Jul 2017 #23

But Woodward and Bernstein had an editor and the resources of a major newspaper The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2017 #24

I'm not going to tell that to either of those journalists. MineralMan Jul 2017 #25

W and B editors didn't know who Deep Throat was. pnwmom Jul 2017 #27

But Deep Throat's leaks were basically hints about whom to interview The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2017 #29

Unprovoked and scurrilious attack against the OP Warpy Jul 2017 #26

And in a related matter, moondust Jul 2017 #30

But it's so easy to change the world these days defacto7 Jul 2017 #31