4 ms·
One should only trust named, identified sources. The age of anonymous sources in mainstream media needs to end, because an anonymous source is not a source. Y
by somesortofsystm 6y ago
One should only trust named, identified sources. The age of anonymous sources in mainstream media needs to end, because an anonymous source is not a source.
Yes, sources should be protected. But there should be mechanisms in place to protect sources who identify themselves that do not require the gullible public to just believe what they were told, because an authority said it was okay to believe something an anonymous person said about something.
Maybe this is something that the crypto/cert folks should address - a means of verifying that a source has been properly and adequately identified, without revealing the details required to target that individual for harassment/assassination/etc.
A media clearing house for sources, or a blockchain ...
- raxxorrax 6y agoBut we also had the Russian election manipulation talk without any named source and evidence and it was widely believed.
- somesortofsystm 6y agoI categorize that situation as mass hysteria, personally, another mutation of the 'red-baiting' McCarthy'ism that hasn't escaped American culture, which needs enemies to justify its trillion dollar investment in death machines. It served mostly as a mechanism for Americans to deflect from the real issues with their election: the Democrats fielded a corrupt, criminal candidate who could not defeat an also-corrupt, despicable ex-reality TV star. So, blame Russia. And therefore, a perfectly good example for why people should demand sources be revealed when it comes to issues of state election security. Otherwise, we will continue to be ruled by duplicitous subterfuge instead of verifiable facts.