Whenever I see the words "anonymous source",

[SIMPLYB1980]

I consider what ever follows to be a lie. Even if it's about a republican. Until someone is willing to put their name to a story I consider it BS or pot stirring by the M$M. That's just me though. I need a little more than some "reporter" from politico asking me to trust them on there sources. No politico I don't trust you, because you have shown yourselves to be shills since you started up, and continue to validate that opinion on a daily basis.

[spanone]

1. watergate was revealed thru an anonymous source..deep throat

[TheWraith]

3. Who provided evidence, not a pull quote.

There's a difference between covert whistleblowing and stirring up shit by making BS comments to a political tabloid.

[spanone]

4. i don't trust politico, but that doesn't make all anonymous sources suspect..imo

[lamp_shade]

2. Especially when it comes from Politico or from Joe Scarborough.

[HopeHoops]

5. That's called FOX Fact Checking

"Anonymous Sources confirm our made up bullshit"

[leftofthedial]

6. Whenever any Washington insider is quoted, named or anonymous,

I consider whatever they said to be a lie.

[DCKit]

7. Some people say anonymous sources are unimpeachable. n/t

[Spazito]

8. Ahhhh, yes, the 'anonymouses', scurrying out only when they can't be caught...

leaving droppings others have to clean up. I, too, don't trust anonymouses primarily because we no longer have investigative journalists who print nothing without at least three separate sources on the same item. These days, it's any 'anonymouse' is good.

[frebrd]

9. It's always a source who provided information "on condition of anonymity"....

"because he is not authorized to discuss the matter", but who just went ahead and did it anyway. Why would anyone trust the word of this person? What kind of reliable information is that? What kind of journalism is that?

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

10. I glanced at a bio of Katharine Hepburn, and it was full of "a friend said," "someone said," -

so many anonymous sources for a dead movie star.

And the Wash Post reviewer praised the book for all it's "new" information. No kidding!

Film critics should stick to reviewing films and not reviewing 'non-fiction' fiction.