Most left-leaning readers and journalists agree that smearing a person without any way to check the sources is completely ok. Meanwhile, a significant number of readers say the media would be better off not using them, even if that means waiting longer for an important story.
The leftwing media seems to use anonymous sources more than they used to. However, when many people see them using anonymous sources, they stop reading that article because there is no way to fact check what the article is claiming.
A recent example is when The Atlantic claimed that anonymous sources told them that President Trump called veterans, "losers and suckers."
The headline description reads:
"The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic."
However, when you get into the article, none of these mysterious sources ever materialize. This has been an ongoing problem when trying to fact check the claims.
Let's be real. Anyone can say any person told them something and then say "but we swore to keep their identity anonymous."
So, how can we fact check the information if we don't know who said it? We can't. That is the whole purpose of the effort. This way, they can smear anyone who they don't like and never have to be held accountable if they are lying.
The damage has already been done. The alt-left automatically believe the article and start using it as though it were facts. It isn't a fact until you can prove it was actually said. But, the media pundits don't care because gullible people will believe it with or without evidence.
That said, a recent survey of 419 media outlets found that most allow reporters to protect a source’s identity in at least some cases. But nearly one-quarter of editors said they’ve banned the practice entirely. Responding to a voluntary online survey sent out by local newspapers, a similar number of readers — about one in five — said media outlets should never report information if a source isn’t willing to be named.
“I am tired of questionable stories naming an ‘unnamed source,’ or a ‘source related to the presidency’ or whatever,” said Cindy Johnson of Astoria, Ore. “If people are willing to give information, they should be willing to give their name. It is far too easy to hide behind the cloak of anonymity.”
Instead of offering real news, anonymous sources have been the news recently, in two high-profile cases: the unveiling of “Deep Throat” and a since-retracted Newsweek report on an incident of Quran abuse. With media policy under wide discussion, The Associated Press and Associated Press Managing Editors surveyed journalists and readers to gauge attitudes toward anonymity in news stories.
The APME reviewed comments from 1,611 readers in 42 states, who were asked to describe how anonymous sources affect their trust in the news. Most readers were willing to leave them in the reporter’s toolbox, and many said the media simply couldn’t cover important stories without being able to protect people in vulnerable positions. Still, 44% said anonymity makes them less likely to believe what they read, consistently invoking one descriptive phrase: the double-edged sword.
“Anonymity brings with it a willingness to cast light into the dark places that hide secrets about what we all need to know,” said Bruce Fritz of Mesa, Ariz. “On the other hand, the use of anonymous sources makes the media a dupe for putting out unreliable stories.”
Editors should be willing to take the risk for an important report, readers said, holding the government and other powers accountable. But they cautioned that the only credibility at stake is the media’s: The more believable a newspaper has been in the past, the more likely readers are to accept its judgment on anonymity. But trust the wrong source, and the public will stop trusting you.
Used properly, said Kenneth Stammerman of Louisville, Ky., hidden sources aren’t just important for bombshell stories. They’re also a tool toward effective and accurate daily reporting.
.@TheAtlantic story is not true. It has become a very dangerous time when anonymous sources are believed above all else, & no one knows their motivation. This is not journalism - It is activism. And it is a disservice to the people of our great nation.— Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) September 4, 2020
You can’t confirm anonymous sources from the same anonymous sources— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) September 4, 2020
That said, a recent survey of 419 media outlets found that most allow reporters to protect a source’s identity in at least some cases. But nearly one-quarter of editors said they’ve banned the practice entirely. Responding to a voluntary online survey sent out by local newspapers, a similar number of readers — about one in five — said media outlets should never report information if a source isn’t willing to be named.
“I am tired of questionable stories naming an ‘unnamed source,’ or a ‘source related to the presidency’ or whatever,” said Cindy Johnson of Astoria, Ore. “If people are willing to give information, they should be willing to give their name. It is far too easy to hide behind the cloak of anonymity.”
Instead of offering real news, anonymous sources have been the news recently, in two high-profile cases: the unveiling of “Deep Throat” and a since-retracted Newsweek report on an incident of Quran abuse. With media policy under wide discussion, The Associated Press and Associated Press Managing Editors surveyed journalists and readers to gauge attitudes toward anonymity in news stories.
The APME reviewed comments from 1,611 readers in 42 states, who were asked to describe how anonymous sources affect their trust in the news. Most readers were willing to leave them in the reporter’s toolbox, and many said the media simply couldn’t cover important stories without being able to protect people in vulnerable positions. Still, 44% said anonymity makes them less likely to believe what they read, consistently invoking one descriptive phrase: the double-edged sword.
Reminder: it is literally impossible for anonymous sources to “confirm” a report, particularly when the original report is based solely on anonymous sources. The same people can repeat claims to multiple reporters, of course, particularly when engaged in a campaign operation. https://t.co/FQtgxv77ZD— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 4, 2020
Why are all anti-@realDonaldTrump stories based on anonymous sources? Wait, let me answer: Because they’re chicken shit Trump haters. Shame on the reporters who feed on that steady stream of bullshit.— Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) September 5, 2020
“Anonymity brings with it a willingness to cast light into the dark places that hide secrets about what we all need to know,” said Bruce Fritz of Mesa, Ariz. “On the other hand, the use of anonymous sources makes the media a dupe for putting out unreliable stories.”
Editors should be willing to take the risk for an important report, readers said, holding the government and other powers accountable. But they cautioned that the only credibility at stake is the media’s: The more believable a newspaper has been in the past, the more likely readers are to accept its judgment on anonymity. But trust the wrong source, and the public will stop trusting you.
Used properly, said Kenneth Stammerman of Louisville, Ky., hidden sources aren’t just important for bombshell stories. They’re also a tool toward effective and accurate daily reporting.
"anonymous sources" are necessary for whistle-blowing on issues of national security and importance. Real journalists don't use them for gossip, rumors or hit pieces.— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) September 4, 2020
Disgraced FBI official Andrew McCabe was an anonymous source for the media.— BDW (@BryanDeanWright) September 4, 2020
Trust nothing these people say.
“When I was in the American Foreign Service as an embassy economist in Tel Aviv, Kuwait, or Dhahran, I would provide non-classified but sensitive info to reporters who knew me (and I them) to make sure they got the stories right. If they used my name in the story, my own sources would dry up.”
But most readers said the hustle for a “scoop” has made the media too eager to cater to anonymous sources, and too willing to run stories without corroborating evidence. Seeking verification is the most important thing a reporter can do; the public says it’s willing to wait for a more trustworthy news report.
“Anonymous sources should be considered the journalistic equivalent of the ‘nuclear option,’ ” said Kevin Crawford of Yakima, Wash. “If the information provided cannot be independently verified, it cannot and should not be used. The standard of verification must be set much higher for anonymous sources than that used for open sources, as the risks associated with an error are so much higher.”
But most readers said the hustle for a “scoop” has made the media too eager to cater to anonymous sources, and too willing to run stories without corroborating evidence. Seeking verification is the most important thing a reporter can do; the public says it’s willing to wait for a more trustworthy news report.
“Anonymous sources should be considered the journalistic equivalent of the ‘nuclear option,’ ” said Kevin Crawford of Yakima, Wash. “If the information provided cannot be independently verified, it cannot and should not be used. The standard of verification must be set much higher for anonymous sources than that used for open sources, as the risks associated with an error are so much higher.”
