"according to people familiar with the situation"
Jun 11, 2021 11:14:22 #
The New York Times thinks this is a valid source for it's readers:
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
Jun 11, 2021 14:32:24 #
travelwp wrote:
The New York Times thinks this is a valid source for it's readers:
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
Journalists do not have to, nor should they reveal their sources.
The Supreme Court agrees with me on this one.
Jun 11, 2021 14:53:00 #
travelwp wrote:
The New York Times thinks this is a valid source for it's readers:
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
Reminds me of a former President who was always saying, " people have been saying" or "people have been telling me", etc.
Jun 11, 2021 15:10:50 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
flip1948 wrote:
Reminds me of a former President who was always saying, " people have been saying" or "people have been telling me", etc.
Jun 11, 2021 17:49:40 #
Frank T wrote:
Journalists do not have to, nor should they reveal their sources.
The Supreme Court agrees with me on this one.
The Supreme Court agrees with me on this one.
I stand corrected.
Jun 11, 2021 18:00:43 #
travelwp wrote:
I stand corrected.
Now that is a post we don't see from many people on here! I give you props.
You do kind of have a point though in your OP. My opinion is that the practice has become more prolific over the past 10 or 15 years.
With some of our less reputable journalists, it has become a smokescreen for "Warning, this story is not well sourced and may not be true at all."
And yes, our former president was a pro at that type of obfuscation.
Jun 12, 2021 08:23:24 #
mwalsh wrote:
Now that is a post we don't see from many people on here! I give you props.
You do kind of have a point though in your OP. My opinion is that the practice has become more prolific over the past 10 or 15 years.
With some of our less reputable journalists, it has become a smokescreen for "Warning, this story is not well sourced and may not be true at all."
And yes, our former president was a pro at that type of obfuscation.
You do kind of have a point though in your OP. My opinion is that the practice has become more prolific over the past 10 or 15 years.
With some of our less reputable journalists, it has become a smokescreen for "Warning, this story is not well sourced and may not be true at all."
And yes, our former president was a pro at that type of obfuscation.
Yep, he was a pro at that and his weak-minded followers ate it up without question.
Jun 12, 2021 08:48:17 #
travelwp wrote:
The New York Times thinks this is a valid source for it's readers:
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
That decision is not the reporter. It is the source itself who refuses to be quoted.
Rest assured any reporter will name the source if the source agrees to be named.
In today’s world of instant h**e and worse just because an opinion or statement is disagreed with,, can you blame sources for wanting to remain anonymous- as opposed to h**e mail and worse.
In this digital day and age where means of ferreting our names addresses etc are available to anyone with a smart phone who in their right mind would want their name out their.
So use you brain for a change and recognize that it is not the paper or the reporter making that decision it is the source.
Jun 12, 2021 09:10:35 #
It's not so much as they are allowed to use "un named " sources, but there is no way to verify if those "un mamed" sources are valid. And should "un named" sources" be believed. I have UnNamed sources who had proof that the moon really is made of cheese. Go proove I am wrong
Jun 12, 2021 09:23:21 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
boberic wrote:
It's not so much as they are allowed to use "un named " sources, but there is no way to verify if those "un mamed" sources are valid. And should "un named" sources" be believed. I have UnNamed sources who had proof that the moon really is made of cheese. Go proove I am wrong
Trump would have his "friend" at the Enquirer publish things, then he would quote them. When did you post your displeasure about that?
Jun 12, 2021 09:24:03 #
travelwp wrote:
The New York Times thinks this is a valid source for it's readers:
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
"according to people familiar with the situation"
Does anyone remember when employees were called Journalists and actually had names or titles for their sources?
Many decades ago possibly.
Jun 12, 2021 14:50:33 #
captivecookie
Loc: Washington state
thom w wrote:
Trump would have his "friend" at the Enquirer publish things, then he would quote them. When did you post your displeasure about that?
I'll take this opportunity to voice displeasure at that. That would definitely be a sneaky, slimy thing to do.
I also remember a time when sourcing seemed to be a bit more urgently pursued by journalists.
Jun 12, 2021 16:16:39 #
captivecookie wrote:
I also remember a time when sourcing seemed to be a bit more urgently pursued by journalists.
It's been a long time since we had real journalists. Today we have extensions of political parties who have microphones and printing presses.
Jun 12, 2021 16:24:29 #
travelwp wrote:
It's been a long time since we had real journalists. Today we have extensions of political parties who have microphones and printing presses.
NEWS is completely dead.
It has always been biased but now the mask and pretension of impartiality has been completely removed.
Jun 12, 2021 19:52:31 #
mwalsh wrote:
Now that is a post we don't see from many people on here! I give you props.
You do kind of have a point though in your OP. My opinion is that the practice has become more prolific over the past 10 or 15 years.
With some of our less reputable journalists, it has become a smokescreen for "Warning, this story is not well sourced and may not be true at all."
And yes, our former president was a pro at that type of obfuscation.
You do kind of have a point though in your OP. My opinion is that the practice has become more prolific over the past 10 or 15 years.
With some of our less reputable journalists, it has become a smokescreen for "Warning, this story is not well sourced and may not be true at all."
And yes, our former president was a pro at that type of obfuscation.
Only, because he was speaking the t***h and you didn't like it? and you on the left prefer..."mystification"
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.