Sources - They Come in Many Varieties

[MineralMan]

Here are some of the kinds of sources journalistic people and those who want to be considered as journalists use when they want to write a story:

1. Actually Named Sources - These are the rarest and most trustworthy sources. They get quoted in the story and are willing to identify themselves publicly. This type of source rarely is willing to talk to minor newsbloggers, though. They talk to journalists everyone recognizes. They're worth listening to, in many cases, especially if they are closely connected to the subject they're talking about. In other cases, they may be only "Expert sources," as described below.

2. Sources Close to Something - These sources are very, very popular with everyone. what "close to" means, however, varies widely. Sometimes, it's a real person who is actually involved in a situation. Often, though, such sources are only "close to" something in terms of physical location, and don't really know anything.

3. Sources Associated with Something - Similar to "close to something" sources, these sources could be anyone who has any relationship with the subject. For example, a "Source associated with the CIA" could be a janitor in the building or even a UPS driver who regularly stops there. These sources are popular with newsbloggers. They might even actually exist, but don't really know anything important, even if they do.

3. Expert Sources - These sources are generally someone who used to be associated with or work for some organization. They have retired, been fired, or are otherwise no longer privy to current information. Often, they talk to others who are also no longer associated with something, and speak authoritatively, if incorrectly. These sources are sometimes named, but often insist on anonymity.

4. Unnamed Sources - These sources are the most popular of all. They have no names, and that's very useful. Sometimes, they "insist on remaining anonymous" or "decline to identify themselves." Sometimes they're real sources. Sometimes they're made up out of whole cloth by the person "quoting" them. How can you tell the difference? You can't. Many grains of salt are needed here.

5. Multiple Sources - These are also unnamed sources, but if you can mention more than one, you can pretend that your information is corroborated. It's not, but that doesn't matter. If you say you have "multiple sources," more naive people will be taken in by your misinformation.

6. Anonymous Sources - When a journalist or other writer actually uses this wording, it means that there is no source other than the voice in their own head. These are the weakest, most unreliable sources of all. Only inexperienced newsbloggers actually use this phrasing. They'll soon learn to use different types of sources, like the ones described above.

[Fluke a Snooker]

1. Source integrity depends on party or group as well

For instance, anonymous sources with information that advances our progressive agenda have been proven to be far more correct than so called "expert sources" from Trumpian universe idiots.

[MineralMan]

2. That's not actually the case.

There are a number of people who pretend to be on the left who are promulgating false information. That was an enormous problem in 2016, and it still persists.

All sources need to be verified these days, whatever part of the political spectrum they represent. There are plenty of people who are presenting false information on every side. That is the point of this post.

[Fluke a Snooker]

3. Actually, it proves MY point as well

Although you are technically correct in that sources on the "Left" were actually Trumptards, particularly Breitbart goons, the fact remains that only REAL progressive sources can be trusted, while those on the right are full of Trump's hot air.