Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
In journalism, you sometimes finding yourself having to quote anonymous sources to protect their identities. This is one of those cases.
I know the Sunday Times to be reliable.
The same reason many stories break on BBC News before they reach MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. They've got plenty of good journalists over there.
|
-- A journalist quoting an 'anonymous source' does not automatically give that anonymous source validity. You have no idea if it is someone out to burn someone else or who has an ax to grind.
I remember the "Downing St. Memos" that were "copies of the original that had been destroyed" (how convenient) brought forth by an 'anonymous source.' That died a quick death.
And the 'anonymous source' who allegedly brought forth actual 1960's documentation from Bush's time in the service. CBS News ran with it, only to find out that the documents were not from the 60s but were typed up in Microsoft Word. That 'anonymous source' vanished and has never been heard from again.
That is why when you are tried you cannot be convicted by an 'anonymous source.' You get to face your accuser.
YOU believe it because you WANT to believe it. You have no proof other than an unvetted, unverified, 'anonymous source.' Good luck with that.