Ironically the white house is on to something when they mock the idea of using unnamed anonymous sources. All we ever heard from news for decades is 'unnamed anonymous source' this, or 'unnamed anonymous source' that; I recall reporters going to countries in Africa and saying their unnamed source claimed this or that, and the guy they're speaking to asks who's making the claim, they refuse to tell (obviously), and guy points out he literally can't refute claims made by people you can't prove have the qualification to speak on the matters that they do. This strategy allows reporters to basically ask questions based on their hallucinations and pretend there's legitimacy there. EDIT: For the record though I only agree on this one principle, I don't agree with Trump or the clowns working with him on anything else.
"America last behavior"; Did Trump personally write this? There's actually someone else in the white house who talks like a redditor?

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anonymous sources are important to reporting because it protects the source from reprisal. The problem is when anonymous sources are accepted uncritically as being as authoritative as something with substantial published sources.

[–] Chana@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago

The problem is that reporting is inherently subject to the amount one can trust the journalist(s) and editors, what their authority is regarding veracity, and most of them are full of shit and think they are underdogs fighting the good fight.