Secret sources are a part of journalism, always have been. Every institution that uses them puts their credibility on the line.
This newfound manufactured “outrage” over secret sources is nothing more than a deliberate strategy to take the eye off of the real issues that are being raised through the stories.
No.
In the era of fake news there’s no way to discern real from fake when the source isn’t listed.
Look at how many stories came out during the last year alone that were fake
Sources have to be listed properly and be authenticated otherwise they are virtually meaningless.
If say a sexual assault allegation came out against somebody, and the source was secret, there would be no meaning at all to the source.
False, that has never been the case. Sources have to be vetted, but not listed.
So you fully believe random anonymous sources with no authentication just because it is how it’s done. Brilliant.
No, I said vetted, meaning authenticated by the journalist and the institution using the source.
So you believe the Journalist without them listing their own source so you don’t know where it has come from or its credibility. What if a journalist were to make up a source and claim it was anonymous?
I want the journalist to identify the source if at all feasible (and so does the journalist). But that’s not always an option under the circumstances. My point is - stories based off of unnamed sources are not automatically discredited, as the Trumpkins are now attempting to argue. The story’s credibility is helped by listing the source, sure, but is not automatically dismissed because it came from someone anonymously - especially if the journalist gives the other person a chance to comment on the content of the story (which they invariably do).
They shouldn’t be automatically discredited as Fox News and others are claiming, but certainly the credibility should be questioned, not taken as gospel as is done so by most.
Lets say that “A anonymous source claims Melania Trump has financial ties to a Igor Ivanov”, should the source be completely disregarded as fake news to damage Trump, no. Should it immediately regarded as the truth and extend that to Trump and Putin working together, also no.
A middle ground has to be taken and the source must be allowed to be scrutinised by the public so they can decide whether its true or not. One cannot rely on anonymous sources to dictate their opinions otherwise it can be easily based off perfidious claims.
If news stories with secret sources had a good track record I would accept them. It’s why I make an exception for wikileaks - they have a spotless record spanning over a decade.
You cannot say the same for any MSM and secret sources.
Two things: is Melania given the opportunity to comment as to the truth of the story? If so, the credibility is higher, and the reporting is fair (assuming vetting in the initial news gathering). Second, is the suggested extension that Trump and Putin working together part of the straight news, or part of editorials/news analysis portions of journalism?
She comes out and says it is false and never happened. Yet it’s still ran as the main story.
It’s not part of the original source yet it is expanded and added to be proof of a collusion. It will be taken as proof of a direct collusion between the US and Russia despite the source not ever being shown. It is played repeatedly on the majority of news networks and is all over social media of proof of a collusion despite the source never being publicly verified by anyone outside the original institution.
Then it becomes a matter of credibility to the consumer to decide who they believe. People who are going to have bad news printed about them are nearly always going to deny it. [quote=“hugh_gilly, post:1014, topic:226860”]
It’s not part of the original source yet it is expanded and added to be proof of a collusion.
[/quote]
But is it being reported as such, or opined as such?
There’s also something called institutional credibility. Some journalists are associated with institutions that enjoy considerable credibility; others are not.
Their record is one of consistent, implacable hostility toward the US in the service of the Russian intelligence services. That’s not the sort of ‘spotless’ that engenders faith in what they do.
It’s also apples-and-oranges to compare news organizations with one that simply data-dumps.
For obvious reasons, sources can’t always be made public (at least early on), so this is not a feasible approach. Thus, the public is left to make their decision based on other factors, including the institutional credibility I mentioned above.
That is a very good point ED. And I think we are in the middle of a crisis of credibility regarding most of these institutions. They have become an object of scorn from one party or another. For example, as a democrat would you trust a FOX report 100%? I highly doubt it. Just as I would not trust an MSNBC report 100%.
We are living in strange times where the media at least in part has taken up sides. Therefore, all of these unnamed sources attacking Trump, for the most part, are not going to be believed by those who support Trump. Whereas, a good clean story where there are two or three named credible sources would put all of that to rest regardless of which news outlet did the reporting.
For example, when Hillary Clinton was being accused of not handling the Benghazi situation correctly there were people on the ground, some special forces who were named in stories. That gave the Benghazi story credibility.
We have fallen to the point where a rumor of a Comey memo is now (according to some on the loony left) grounds for impeachment. Keep in mind this is before we even know for certain that there is a Comey memo and also before we know what was actually said in the alleged Comey memo. And of course why this has come to light three months after this alleged memo was written. This is insanity!
So hugh_gilly is correct in my estimation. I think we have all had enough of these unnamed sources. If one or two credible witnesses would step forward with some seriously solid damning proof I think you would see much of the Trump support dwindle. I would not stand by a President, regardless of party, if I thought for an instant he was colluding with Russia. But at this point in time I still see it as nothing more than a political distraction. But, that would end if there were named witnesses with solid proof.
People will just make decisions off of the News Network they prefer whether that is credible or not, they decide ultimately. Some people may think Buzzfeed is a extremely credible source and detest anything coming out of Fox news as vile make-believe fantasies. Others may be the other way round.
People are more likely to believe the news network they like as regardless of the source. So when the majority of US News networks are left leaning and they report the anonymous sources as the truth people believe that. That’s were the issue lies. If there were a equal amount of “fake news” on both sides the problem wouldn’t be as great.
I disagree that there is a genuine crisis of credibility regarding the longstanding major journalism institutions. A manufactured faux-crisis, yes. But that’s not the same thing.
A key component of the conservative long-game of the past 30 years has been a systematic attempt to undermine public faith in the mainstream media.
And while that effort has proven very successful, this success should not be taken as evidence that the assertions made by this smear campaign are true.
Some have. Most (mainstream) media have not.
Respectfully, I suggest you speak for yourself.
I disagree. Trump’s core supporters have proven to be highly fact-resistant. This is a testament to the success of the scorched-earth efforts of conservatives to undermine the Fourth Estate in the cynical service of their political agenda.
Due to the efforts of the Russians, the vast, vast majority of recent fake news was/is in the service of right-wing causes.
Absolutely, and these institutions are the ones signing their names to the risks of using anonymous sources (as you well know). They know how this works and that there is a huge price to pay for not managing these risks (see Rolling Stone rape hoax).
Truth is, this is an unusual situation because of the sheer volume of leaks inside the WH and administration. That tells us more about the problems with the administration than it does with journalism - in other words, high use of unnamed sources is a symptom of something else wrong underlying, not the cause.
But, in all fairness the mainstream media has absolutely been tougher on republicans than on democrats. It is a statistical fact. Therefore, they have a reason to “undermine” the mainstream media as it has taken a huge turn to the left.
When about 80% of all stories on President Trump are negative there is an obvious problem. And as was stated by others on this board the media went exceptionally light on Obama. So…if there is a problem then the criticism seems fair. No?
I would say most have and some have not. Please name the various mainstream outlets that have been fair right down the middle.
I think most Americans are not overly impressed with “unnamed sources”. Given the number of negative stories about Donald Trump relative to these unnamed sources one would think that at this point his approval ratings would be even lower than they are. But, people as it turns out are a bit smarter than the left might think. Naturally those on the left can’t get enough of the unnamed stories…And I fully understand that. But keep in mind that the far left does not represent most Americans.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1019, topic:226860”]
I disagree. Trump’s core supporters have proven to be highly fact-resistant.[/quote]
Not so fast. Which “facts” are they resistant to? Unnamed sources? Who wouldn’t be? If you are talking about Trump’s personality that is another matter. But, if you take a deep breath and take a step back what has Trump actually done that would cause a Trump supporter to no longer support him? And I am not talking about his off the cuff tweets…and other such comments…which by the way I despise.
The fourth estate deserves every negative comment made about them by Trump or anyone else. They are mostly a pack of hungry wolves trying to chase Trump down for the journalistic kill. Again…not all of them, but most.
So zero is an equal split of audience members who are either liberal or conservative. As it goes left, where most networks are placed, the more liberal the audience is. So out of the major US organisations far more have liberal audiences so they pander to the liberal viewers.