3 ms·
Journalism is also not peer-review. It should never be viewed as such. Anonymous sources, the tendency for people to shy away from being recorded and just the s
by stinkytaco 8y ago
Journalism is also not peer-review. It should never be viewed as such. Anonymous sources, the tendency for people to shy away from being recorded and just the speed of the news preclude some of what you are talking about.
That said, I agree that journalists should be held to account. One of the victims of the decline of print media are local news outlets who are checking each other. I've noticed a trend in my own local paper to view themselves as above reproach, the singular check on all that is evil, but not likely to correct their own mistakes. Perhaps some of what you are talking about could check that.
- blotter_paper 8y agoYeah, I totally understand and agree with your reservations. I do think there should be an outlet for Deep Throat situations (as in Mark Felt, not Linda Lovelace). But if a journalist is claiming that something was said by a named source, there should be evidence of that in the vast majority of situations. If a journalist claims something was posted on the surface web, there should be independent archives that back the claim up.