3 ms·
It's strange to me that you assume that just because sources aren't named in public that no fact checking occurred. As far as legality, there is a system in pl
by mratzloff 9y ago
It's strange to me that you assume that just because sources aren't named in public that no fact checking occurred.
As far as legality, there is a system in place; if it's false, it's handled in civil court.
- bob_theslob646 9y ago>It's strange to me that you assume that just because sources aren't named in public that no fact checking occurred. It's hard to take things seriously when people/organizations do not take/put skin in the game. From a risk perspective it is genuis, but from a readers perspective it is problematic in my opinion.( I am not a fan of gossip) What's stranger to me is how you assume that they fact check.... For all I know they do, but it defeats the purpose of confidentiality agreements if sources speak up when they are explicitly told not too. (I am referring to confidential finance contracts)