9 ms·
> And no, “unnamed sources” aren’t corroboration. Yes, they are. Unnamed sources have brought down institutions ranging from the Nixon administration to the B
by favorited 8y ago
> And no, “unnamed sources” aren’t corroboration.
Yes, they are. Unnamed sources have brought down institutions ranging from the Nixon administration to the Boston archdiocese.
- CobrastanJorji 8y agoYou're both right. Unnamed sources have indeed released big stories on multiple occasions and are therefore useful, but citing them definitely discounts an article's reliability, since neither the reader nor any other news sources can seek clarification or verification.