An Anonymous, Unnamed Source Close to Something Said Some Bullshit.

[MineralMan]

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!

[msongs]

1. yeah but anonymous sources are good if it something that support our own views nt

[MineralMan]

2. Well, of course. I mean, if we like what was said,

it's all good, right?

[Kathy M]

3. This should have been said a long tie ago .........

[MineralMan]

4. Oh, it has been, and often, but nobody seems to

listen. These days, a huge number of stories are based on something some unknown and unnamed person supposedly said. It's shocking how quickly such nonsense is spread around the internet, but seems never to be shown to be untrue.

[rzemanfl]

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

I have this button the produces them in endless quantities. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Guilded Lilly]

5. Who What When Where Why and How..still the sound and sane basis of professional journalism

[MineralMan]

6. That credo is less honored now than ever before.

And the public doesn't seem to care. It's exquisitely frustrating to observe.

[Guilded Lilly]

15. Dumbing Down syndrome :( Reality TV/Ratings mentality.

[MineralMan]

16. Yes, I'm afraid so...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

7. That is why it's a good idea to only believe reputable outlets such as the NY Times, etc. Unless

it's a story by Judith Miller - lol! Most stuff by Louise Mensch is only good for fantasyland and can be a cheap thrill.

[MineralMan]

8. I pay absolutely zero attention to people like Mensch.

She is in no way a journalist, citizen or otherwise. Feh!

[Nictuku]

10. Deep Throat was an anomyous source

http://www.newseum.org/2015/05/31/watergate-case-study-deep-throat/

[MineralMan]

11. That is true, but additional reporting

corroborated information from that source. Further, the reporters knew who the source was, and so did top editors. Careful journalism and fact-checking were still in evidence at that time.

That is no longer the case at many "news" outlets, and especially on random Internet blogs and other sites. In fact, there is precious little journalism available at those venues.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. But Deep Throat didn't so much leak specific facts as give Woodward hints

Last edited Sun Jul 23, 2017, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

and clues about where should look and whom he should interview - and that he should "follow the money." Woodward and Bernstein didn't publish stories based on Deep Throat's information alone; they corroborated his leaks using other sources.

[ProudLib72]

12. I heard that tRump was going to buy out the McDonalds franchise

so he could eat all of those lovely fries himself. At least, that's what my neighbor's 1 1/2 year old said. At least, that's what I think he said. He may have been remarking on some bugs he found. I don't know. I'm sticking with the McDonalds story.



All I know for certain is that he is much more reliable than Mensch.

[Igel]

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

Some little kid will say something and it'll go unchallenged. Somebody will be presented giving his/her opinion, and it won't be challenged. "Trump is going to deport all the Muslims." "Obama's going to take away our guns."

The actual "news" is that the kid or the person I have no particular interest in has this opinion. That's it. Whoopity. If I talk to 20 people in a day and they all give their opinion, that's no more newsworthy than that little girl's or that named but faceless person.

The real takeaway is that "the news says, 'Trump is going to deport all the Muslims" or "Obama's going to take away our guns'," which promptly loses the sentence frame "the news says, '...'." Even if it's false, the proposition is momentarily accepted as true and has an effect.

[rzemanfl]

14. What's your position on things like "current and former intelligence officials" in a reputable

source? I tend to believe attributions like that, whether it supports my view or not.

[MineralMan]

17. I look at the publication or organization to

see whether I trust those. If it has a long reputation for accuracy, I'm more likely to believe the story. In some cases, there is good reason for a source to be kept anonymous, and reputable sources respect that and are careful with such sources.

On the other hand, disreputable and questionable outlets take advantage of that and often make up sources or use unreliable sources. Considering where a story appears very carefully is my advice.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. And, if a report is something so hot that it should be in a headline

in the NY Times or WaPo or on a "breaking news" chyron on CNN and it isn't, and it can't be located anywhere except in some blog, ask yourself why it's not turning up in any of those outlets. Reputable news outlets typically don't go with a story unless they can confirm it independently with at least one, and preferably two, other sources. Gossip-mongering, sensationalist internet blogs (*cough* Patribotics *cough*) don't do that, but instead rely on God knows what sources (like radio broadcasts picked up on their fillings or the mumblings of the old drunk at the end of the bar who used to mop the floors in the lobby at Langley), and that's why their rumors rarely, if ever, pan out.

[MineralMan]

21. Yes, and why would some highly-placed source

go to some unknown Internet venue to "spill the beans?" I can think of no possible reason. Getting in touch with highly-respected news reporters is easier than it has ever been. Why not go to the top? Why not get the story you have to tell out in a big way?

The answer is that they simply wouldn't go to some half-assed Internet blogger or anything of the sort. They just wouldn't.

[Orrex]

22. For all the praise she gets for posting bullshit...

you'd think that Mensch's sources would be only to happy to go on record with such a paragon of journalistic excellence.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. So let's say I'm the guy who repairs the photocopiers at FBI headquarters

and I find a piece of paper that someone left on a copier, and it's some agent's notes of a clandestine meeting with a White House official (say, Reince Priebus) describing how Trump has been "entertaining" Russian hookers in the Oval Office, requiring the prompt services of housekeepers because of the, um, dampness that results. And I think to myself, "Wow, this is a freaking bombshell and the public needs to know about it, but it's so bizarre that nobody would believe it unless it comes from the most reputable source possible! Where do I take it? Who do I give it to that would be totally believed...Who?...The New York Times? The Washington Post? Newsweek? Reuters? ....I know! Louise Mensch! Everybody reads Patribotics!"

[pnwmom]

23. Tell that to Woodward and Bernstein. Woodward was a rookie reporter and many people

disparaged his reporting for that reason.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. But Woodward and Bernstein had an editor and the resources of a major newspaper

backing them up. They were assigned to the Watergate break-in initially because they were rookies and it appeared at first to be a relatively unimportant local crime story. The credibility of their reporting as it developed after that was based on the reputation of the newspaper they worked for and the fact that, as the major paper in D.C., it would follow accepted journalistic practices. Everyone knew the Post wouldn't publish stuff by rookie reporters (or any other reporters) that hadn't been properly sourced and verified.

[MineralMan]

25. I'm not going to tell that to either of those journalists.

I don't know them. Their stories were published only after extensive fact checking and corroboration - the sort of thing that used to be done by legitimate news outlets. I didn't disparage their stories, because I trusted the publication at the time.

[pnwmom]

27. W and B editors didn't know who Deep Throat was.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbis-no-2-was-deep-throat-mark-felt-ends-30-year-mystery-of-the-posts-watergate-source/2012/06/04/gJQAwseRIV_story.html?utm_term=.0e62b268719c

Bradlee knew only Felt’s status as a top FBI official. The editor did not learn Felt’s name until after The Post had won the Pulitzer Prize for its Watergate coverage and Nixon had resigned.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. But Deep Throat's leaks were basically hints about whom to interview

and how to follow the money. The information Woodward acquired on the basis of Deep Throat's clues was independently verified before the stories were published. The Post didn't publish Woodward's stuff just because he went to Ben Bradlee and said, "There's this guy I meet in a parking ramp at night and I can't tell you who he is but he said xyz and I want to report it." That's not how it went down. Read All the President's Men and you'll see that the Post confirmed what W&B got from Deep Throat before they went to press.

[Warpy]

26. Unprovoked and scurrilious attack against the OP

for posting anything by a writer whose ancestry, anatomy, proclivities, and political purity can all be questioned.

Patronizing admonishment to display better sense in the future.

[moondust]

30. And in a related matter,

we hear about leaks exposing the lies and bad behavior of somebody, citing "intercepts" of "somebody's" communications, but aren't "somebody's" communications encrypted?

Indeed, what to believe.

[defacto7]

31. But it's so easy to change the world these days

by dropping an imaginary truth here or there. The fact is, considering how data spreads, the impetus for success or failure of any information falls directly on the reader. Their capacity to think and their motivation to decern and research information is the only protection there is against alt-facts.
The spread of false info is unstoppable. How much faith do you have that people will get smart enough to combat and rebut its spread and application?
Thanks for being one of the smart ones.