This is something I see come up a lot in relationship to reporting on our government. If an anonymous source is used, it is almost always to push an agenda one way other the other. Because neither...
Don't trust anonymous sources.
This is something I see come up a lot in relationship to reporting on our government. If an anonymous source is used, it is almost always to push an agenda one way other the other. Because neither the source nor the report have much skin in the game when using it.
I think an import corollary number 2 is a modified Hitchens's razor
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
I think it's important to note that "dismissing" the claim is not the same thing as automatically believing the opposite of the claim. Seems like a common mistake.
I think it's important to note that "dismissing" the claim is not the same thing as automatically believing the opposite of the claim. Seems like a common mistake.
agreed! Also anonymous sources can be used w/o issue if they provide a way to independently verify what is being reported. But the hearsay that goes on in some reporting is detrimental to the...
agreed!
Also anonymous sources can be used w/o issue if they provide a way to independently verify what is being reported. But the hearsay that goes on in some reporting is detrimental to the public ability to believe the press.
I think it's important to distinguish between anonymous sources, unnamed sources, unnamed spokespeople and unverified sources in this context. The media company doesn't know the identity of an...
I think it's important to distinguish between anonymous sources, unnamed sources, unnamed spokespeople and unverified sources in this context.
The media company doesn't know the identity of an anonymous source (like a leak of unknown origin). In many cases editorial boards cannot ask questions to learn required context, but have to accept/reject claims at face value.
An unnamed source has an identity known to the publication that isn't published for whatever reason. That reason should pretty much always be given in the story itself so readers know why that's reasonable (or isn't).
An unnamed spokesperson especially in the context of breaking news is someone who handles press on behalf of a company/agency. Their identity is unimportant to the story and in many cases identifying a spokesperson will cause a ton of media outlets to call/request comments from one individual where a group of people are supposed to handle media requests. Many press releases or general comments in the early phase of breaking news are given by unnamed spokespeople as those in leading positions who usually handle major news stories are unavailable or unfamiliar with the news because it's actually breaking.
All sources can be either verified or not. If you can't corroborate something, but have a single source, that's unverified. The content of what they say or whether they're in a position to know something.
There are many good reasons for trusting these types of sources. That does depend on the credibility of the news outlet reporting, and how extraordinary a claim is. The crazier the claim, the better your sources had better be.
The idea that unidentified or anonymous sources should be disregarded is a view that strongly favors those in positions of power who don't like to be questioned (government, politicians, corporations).
It is also a view favored by those who want you not to trust media because they'd much rather you listen to them directly instead so no critical questions are asked but they get their message out as they want it packaged.
The use of bad sources (see: sports and celebrity gossip) ruin credibility for all other news, breaking or not. If you want to ruin a qualified and critical press, your best bet is to start an unserious contender that tries to look like it's performing the same journalism, but isn't.
This is something I see come up a lot in relationship to reporting on our government. If an anonymous source is used, it is almost always to push an agenda one way other the other. Because neither the source nor the report have much skin in the game when using it.
I think an import corollary number 2 is a modified Hitchens's razor
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
I think it's important to note that "dismissing" the claim is not the same thing as automatically believing the opposite of the claim. Seems like a common mistake.
agreed!
Also anonymous sources can be used w/o issue if they provide a way to independently verify what is being reported. But the hearsay that goes on in some reporting is detrimental to the public ability to believe the press.
I think it's important to distinguish between anonymous sources, unnamed sources, unnamed spokespeople and unverified sources in this context.
The media company doesn't know the identity of an anonymous source (like a leak of unknown origin). In many cases editorial boards cannot ask questions to learn required context, but have to accept/reject claims at face value.
An unnamed source has an identity known to the publication that isn't published for whatever reason. That reason should pretty much always be given in the story itself so readers know why that's reasonable (or isn't).
An unnamed spokesperson especially in the context of breaking news is someone who handles press on behalf of a company/agency. Their identity is unimportant to the story and in many cases identifying a spokesperson will cause a ton of media outlets to call/request comments from one individual where a group of people are supposed to handle media requests. Many press releases or general comments in the early phase of breaking news are given by unnamed spokespeople as those in leading positions who usually handle major news stories are unavailable or unfamiliar with the news because it's actually breaking.
All sources can be either verified or not. If you can't corroborate something, but have a single source, that's unverified. The content of what they say or whether they're in a position to know something.
There are many good reasons for trusting these types of sources. That does depend on the credibility of the news outlet reporting, and how extraordinary a claim is. The crazier the claim, the better your sources had better be.
The idea that unidentified or anonymous sources should be disregarded is a view that strongly favors those in positions of power who don't like to be questioned (government, politicians, corporations).
It is also a view favored by those who want you not to trust media because they'd much rather you listen to them directly instead so no critical questions are asked but they get their message out as they want it packaged.
The use of bad sources (see: sports and celebrity gossip) ruin credibility for all other news, breaking or not. If you want to ruin a qualified and critical press, your best bet is to start an unserious contender that tries to look like it's performing the same journalism, but isn't.