5 ms·

Is it really true that "someone published in a newspaper said so, therefore we can rely on its being true"? I don't think so. Hard data, credible sources are w

• Fargren 14y ago
  Reporter's sources need a right to remain anonymous if journalism is to unveil important crimes. While it is not hard evidence, an article by a respected reporter on a respected publication is, normally, to be trusted. He probably has sources, but he can't reveal the in order to protect them. He trusts them enough to bet his reputation on what they say. It's a sketchy system, but it's the best we can get if we want journalism to remain investigative (though we may already be losing that battle).
• abrahamsen 14y ago
  Depends on who "someone" is, what the "newspaper" is, and what was said with "said so". In this case "someone" is a double Pulitzer Prize winner, and what was said was something of a nature that means the editor in any reputable newspaper will demand hard evidence, i.e. he will have the names of all the sources, and confirmed with at least some of them. If the story is a fraud (possible, look up Jayson Blair), the editor would have to be in on it, and it would be a larger scandal than the story itself, which really just confirms what everybody already suspected. The story is as good as investigative journalism gets. And yes, reputation matters a lot in journalism. Jayson Blair is a life coach today.