4 ms·
Corollary: I absolutely hate it when media outlets use the term "a source". Yes, I do understand that sometimes 'source' is used because the other party request
by iamdave 14y ago
Corollary: I absolutely hate it when media outlets use the term "a source". Yes, I do understand that sometimes 'source' is used because the other party requested or requires anonymity for the continuity of their current endeavors or whatever other reason.
But with the current state of news delivery operating at Warp 10 with the added bonus of somehow being able to run a hyperdrive engine at the same time and less research actively being done before a story is thoroughly debunked, it irks me.
- m0nastic 14y agoI think it's especially silly in the case of a "source" from a really small startup. This isn't like a "source" at Proctor and Gamble, it's what, like one of five people?
- pbiggar 14y agoOr their friends, or people they spoke to at a party or conference. And so on.
- m0nastic 14y agoI suppose. So a person contacts the article author and says "I spoke with them at a party or conference, and they denied knowing anything about a Windows client." That's a credible source? Of course not.
- pbiggar 14y agoCredibility isn't binary. What's credible for one news organization says nothing about what another organization/journalist/court-of-law-in-the-UK believes is credible. There are many more ways to establish credibility - does your story add up, do you know things you wouldn't without having inside info, can the journalist verify that info with a known insider, have you been a credible source in the past, are you personally known to the journalist, are you a known person in the community, do you have a proven connection to the primary source, etc.