How much credibility do you lend a news report that is backed by an anonymous source?

[Alpha Male]

Simple question, don't care what side of the aisle you're on.

Lots of headlines being spread on social media, lots of fake stories. It has never been easier to spread misinformation.

Taking these things into account, shouldn't we hold our news outlets to a higher standard? Shouldn't the source be equally as important as the headline itself?

Or are we destined to being political cheerleaders for eternity and just rush to every story with flaming pitchforks... without even looking at the facts?

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Feels bad man. Normies. The dankest memes.

 

[Dr. Acula]

Kek. I know fellow pede. These cucks buy into this fake news so easily. They’re not woke like us.

MAGA

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

They’re not woke like us.

the internet nazis prefer the term red pilled

 

[Hood Critic]

Anonymous sources have always and will regularly be used in journalism. The very existence of those sources is based on their anonymity, so I'm not sure what you're even trying to get at here.

 

[Dr. Acula]

the internet nazis prefer the term red pilled

Right.


Err alt-right.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Depends on the news source.

NYTimes/Washington Post/LA Times/AJC/Chicago Tribune?

Always.

Breitbart? Never.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Simple question, don't care what side of the aisle you're on.

Lots of headlines being spread on social media, lots of fake stories. It has never been easier to spread misinformation.

Taking these things into account, shouldn't we hold our news outlets to a higher standard? Shouldn't the source be equally as important as the headline itself?

Or are we destined to being political cheerleaders for eternity and just rush to every story with flaming pitchforks... without even looking at the facts?

what a cuck

 

[Phoenix Rising]

Simple question, don't care what side of the aisle you're on.

Lots of headlines being spread on social media, lots of fake stories. It has never been easier to spread misinformation.

Taking these things into account, shouldn't we hold our news outlets to a higher standard? Shouldn't the source be equally as important as the headline itself?

Or are we destined to being political cheerleaders for eternity and just rush to every story with flaming pitchforks... without even looking at the facts?

You should always question the overuse of anonymous facts.

News agencies can and should get people to quote on record as well they should back up sources with facts, e.g., documents, recordings, etc.

Otherwise they aren't reporting news but posting commentary and spreading gossip and innuendo.

There's a word for it, it's called yellow journalism.

Political parties, both Democrat and Republican, are working overtime to manipulate the public via the press, many times through advocacy groups, non-profit lobbying firms, even directly through their political parties.

Also, given the fact that much of the media is bought and sold by a few rich men...there's always some hidden agenda.

NY Times = Carlos Slim

Washington Post = Jeff Bezos

Fox News = Roger Ailes

There are very few true news sources that report without a bias or a slant and that's sad.

The internet has democratized a lot but with the current attack on net neutrality that won't last long...

And at that, the internet is saturated with trolls, from political parties, advocacy groups, non-profits, who try to strangle out any narrative they feel is oppositional to their narrative so even on the net it's hard to get at honesty, fact, and the truth.

 

[Broke Wave]

That’s the point of having a reputation in the news business...

 

[Black Panther]

You should always question the overuse of anonymous facts.

This is your first mistake. This statement makes a claim without any supporting evidence hereafter.

No one here is questioning that journalists utilize anonymous sources. No one's even arguing that they're not common. But to claim "overuse" is an accusation I would need to see evidence for. I'd also have to obtain an expert opinion (i.e. an actual journalist) as to what the threshold is for "overuse".

News agencies can and should get people to quote on record as well they should back up sources with facts, e.g., documents, recordings, etc.

They do. It just depends on which news outlet you're talking about.

There are very few true news sources that report without a bias or a slant and that's sad.

I'll do you one better: there are none. Every media source is biased.

Depending on what kind of news story you're reading, some are more biased than others, but bias still exists.

The problem is, bias and factual reporting are not always mutually exclusive. I could tell you:

"THE SKY IS BLUE" :infocrazy:

and be an InfoWars junkie that thinks Obama's staging a secret coup to oust Trump, regain the presidency, take our guns, and establish Sharia law in the US.

I may have crazy amounts of bias, but that doesn't mean me telling you the sky is blue is somehow now incorrect. :panthersafe:

 

[Pirius Black]

the internet nazis prefer the term red pilled

Based red pill. Cuck.

 

[Ghost_In_A_Shell]

Kek. They clearly don't want america to be great agian. If only we can send these unfavorable journalist to the wall that our great leader will build.
PROTECT THE WHITE RACE

MAGA

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

Even if they use an anonymous source they still have to reach out to the other side.

Besides, imagine if Snowden Or Manning were anonymous sources. One is in exile and the other got locked up.

Anonymity keeps the playing field of truth honest. Nobody would give info if their names get put out there.

No different than confidential informants
No different than crime hotlines.

 

[AndroidHero]

I lend it more credibility than the right-wing media that are pushing things like pizzagate.