3 ms·
If a journalist cites an anonymous source that is more substantial than a random rumor that somebody just made up. Usually it is corroborated and the sources’ c
by cycrutchfield 9y ago
If a journalist cites an anonymous source that is more substantial than a random rumor that somebody just made up. Usually it is corroborated and the sources’ credibility is taken into account.
Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless.
- filoleg 9y agoMight have something to do with the fact that in the past few years, more than a few "journalists" from respected major publications got caught red-handed with citing sources that were later proven to be less than credible. Here is an example of that reported by Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/27/the-cnn-retraction-and-the-danger-of-relying-on-one-anonymous-source/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...) >Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless. I tend to be suspicious of anonymous sources a lot of times even when they say what I like. That statement was just a baseless assumption about me on your part.
- cycrutchfield 9y agowhat percentage of journalists do you suppose make this mistake? Is your assumption that it is a widespread practice to invent sources to push some sort of agenda?