Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anonymous Sources?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anonymous Sources?

    A new Morning Consult POLITICO poll shows that only 32% of Americans believe it appropriate for journalists to use anonymous sources, compared to 50% against. The survey also shows that 44% of Americans think its likely reporters make up anonymous sources for stories. Party split: 65% of Republicans in the survey said journalists make up sources, compared to only 24% of Democrats.



  • #2
    People are fucking idiots...especially the Repubs...but we already knew that.

    Comment


    • #3
      I guess Watergate wasn't important

      Comment


      • #4
        People believe Elvis is still alive.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Captquint View Post
          I guess Watergate wasn't important
          Ah, the good old days when the press had some integrity.

          Sad those days are long gone.

          Comment


          • #6
            Anonymous sources are crucial to true, honest journalism. Anyone know where we can find some?

            joking aside, it's crucial but at the same time I have no doubt that it can become a safety net for lazy journalists or those looking for some easy bolstered credibility.

            Comment


            • #7
              Karl Rove was an anonymous source when he served under 43

              Comment


              • #8
                Juan Thompson and Jack Kelley. They made up sources or entire quotes so really the only question is how often and why did the 56% think it doesn't happen?
                It's far easier to catch someone who makes up quotes from actual people - rather difficult to catch someone making up anonymous sources.


                The former head of the DNC said journalists made up fake documents and claimed they were from anonymous sources when they weren't. Is it wrong to believe Wikileaks or is it wrong to believe the head of the DNC?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Captquint View Post
                  I guess Watergate wasn't important
                  Anonymous sources are fine when they produce evidence. Those that produce allegations with zero proof are chickenshit political operatives pushing a narrative, not "anonymous sources".

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Porter View Post

                    Anonymous sources are fine when they produce evidence. Those that produce allegations with zero proof are chickenshit political operatives pushing a narrative, not "anonymous sources".
                    Yeah, this.
                    If a journalist is told a lie, they know it's a lie but it benefits their partisan agenda (Michelle Malkin?), declaring them an anonymous source is essentially making up a source.
                    The Gateway Pundit is technically considered a journalist by some - hard for me to believe he's not making shit / sources up out of thin air.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X