Should the news use anonymous sources?

[d72hemi]

I know I cannot speak for every job that everyone has, but every singe job I have ever had required two things from me: accountability and accuracy. I have always been held accountable, and held myself accountable, for every action I took, or allowed. Every report I gave to my boss or subordinates, written or verbal, had been accurate. I do not know if the constant use of anonymous sources annoys you, but it sure does me. Nearly every "news report" I read is packed with line similar to this one, "The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press." Anyone can write a "news report" about anything with the line "The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press", at the end of every so-called quote. That removes the accountability, and thereby undermines the accuracy of the report. It reads like a lying 5 year old that just got in trouble. You ask the child who gave them permission to eat all the cookies before dinner, and they reply, "I don't know, somebody". When I read the news, I want the facts, nothing slanted, and nothing that is unable to be confirmed, and thereby possibly false. That is it for my rant; I am just curious to see if anyone else sees this the same way. If you do not see it this way, cool, you are more than welcome to have your own opinion. (Even if it's wrong. LOL, j/k)

Ian

[ChargerSG]

If its news that dont risk the persons life no, only news that should be anonymous is things when people risk their lifes or someting and is reviling something really heavy..

[253862656971]

Absolutley not!  The simple fact that saying "I can only speak on the condition of anonymity because I am not authourized to speak to the press" is proof that that person needs to keep their damn mouth shut.  If the information needed to be out there then that person would have authorization to speak.  On top of that chances are if the person does not have authorization to speak then they don't know the whole story.  The press uses the line as a get out of jail free card.  They can drum up any kind of a story they want to get ratings.  If it turns out to be false no biggie.  It was the anonymous source that lied not the news people.  The news gets its nose poked in to many places as it is now.  A good example is Iraq.  We're constantly updated with bombs going off and troop deaths.  Vietnam (so I'm told) was the same way.  I ask you this:  Could we have won WWII had the press of today been present then?  I doubt it. 

[Troy]

I always thought that was hilarious myself. If you aren't supposed to be gabbing about it (and don't want to get caught) then keep your trap shut. "Officials" are in place because they are trusted to do a job without blabbing all the details to everyone with a microphone. If they are that worried about the consequences of their actions then they need to find a new line of work and/or speak out and change the way things are done (not undermine everyone else who is doing their job). Is it just me or has this become an epidemic recently? I think every story I read says it at least once - sometimes more. I understand freedom of the press but does it apply to the people they get their information from? I imagine that if a source is revealed then the source can be prosecuted - which points out the fact that they did something wrong (ie. illegal).

Troy

[AKcharger]

Yes they should, how else are we supposed to get inaccurate stories!

[Old Moparz]

The "anonymous source" is BS to me as well, but don't forget that stories are also "leaked" on purpose. (Bad press is good press, or is that bad publicity is good publicity?) That only proves to me that you can't trust anyone in the business of reporting news, & that the truth, if any, is somewhere in between both sides of the story. If people in general weren't so hungry over meaningless garbage there would be less incentive to fabricate or exaggerate a "news story". Very similar to why bogus Hemi cars are created, there's a demand worth some big money.

Take it a step further & you'll see that the media is controlled by large companies who have an agenda. Why cover a story about something that will come back to haunt you later, or why cover something that won't make you money? Walt Disney owns ABC, & decides what stories should be covered by ABC news, or better yet, what stories "shouldn't" be covered. Stories that make Walt Disney look bad, such as this one.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_48_14/ai_53475813

Tom Murphy, Leonard Goldenson's successor, took a similar hands-off approach, even resisting persistent efforts by Accuracy in Media to get him to direct ABC News to correct a serious error. But now Michael Eisner, the chairman of the Walt Disney Co., is the ultimate boss of ABC News. He has shown that he wants David Westin and the ABC newsroom to respect his wishes. One of his wishes is that ABC News refrain from airing stories that are damaging to Disney. He made this clear on Sep. 29, when Eisner said on Fresh Air, a National Public Radio program: "I would prefer ABC not to cover Disney ... ABC News knows that I would prefer them not to cover [Disney]." Only days later, a story that was to air on 20/20 exposing Disney's lax attitude toward employing pedophiles at its theme parks was killed by David Westin.

Everyone is plainly full of s**t & that's all you need to know.

[dkn1997]

I know I cannot speak for every job that everyone has, but every singe job I have ever had required two things from me: accountability and accuracy. I have always been held accountable, and held myself accountable, for every action I took, or allowed. Every report I gave to my boss or subordinates, written or verbal, had been accurate. I do not know if the constant use of anonymous sources annoys you, but it sure does me. Nearly every "news report" I read is packed with line similar to this one, "The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press." Anyone can write a "news report" about anything with the line "The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press", at the end of every so-called quote. That removes the accountability, and thereby undermines the accuracy of the report. It reads like a lying 5 year old that just got in trouble. You ask the child who gave them permission to eat all the cookies before dinner, and they reply, "I don't know, somebody". When I read the news, I want the facts, nothing slanted, and nothing that is unable to be confirmed, and thereby possibly false. That is it for my rant; I am just curious to see if anyone else sees this the same way. If you do not see it this way, cool, you are more than welcome to have your own opinion. (Even if it's wrong. LOL, j/k)

Ian

nice rant bro!!  you hit it right on the head.  There is limited accountability in the media/entertainment(including sports)  industry as well as gov't svc.  Sure, once in a while someone gets pinched, but not because of what they did wrong, but because they pissed off the wrong person. 

When you work in the private industry, where you cannot waste time and money, your BS detector really becomes very accurate because since you are actually responsible for doing your job and someone is watching, you are very motivated to get the true picture of what's going on.

Have any of you read a news story about something that happened halfway across the country and said "hmmmmm....something smells funny on this one?"  only to be proven right days later when the "boyfriend did it" or the "kid was lying" or "it turns out that senator {insert name of scumbag politician} was on the take"

I scare myself once every few months with guesses like these.  Not all the time, but the sun shines even on a dogs ass sometimes....those are the good days....

[Charger_Fan]

nice rant bro!!  you hit it right on the head. 

On a related note, I heard about some paper somewhere that's had to can 5 or 6 of it's reporters, because of low sales. IMO, that's one of the best ways to make these jerks take notice...just cancel your subscriptions! Eventually, they just might get the hint.

[bull]

I'll play devil's advocate here and say I think there are times information should be given out at times when the informant should enjoy anonymity. Watergate for example is one instance where "whistleblowers" exposed certain activities that the American people had a right to know, but if the informant were named his/her life could be in serious danger. That said, it is still the reporter's job to validate the information given to him/her by the informant. In other words, a reporter typically won't just take the source's information at face value and report it without verifying the information first (you can ask Dan Rather what happens when you don't). I don't remember all the details of the Watergate but the reporters at The Washington Post who scooped it did not just recycle a bunch of hearsay evidence, they verified the information they had by viewing records, documents, etc., and used that evidence in their reports.

What I don't like in general is the way TV news goes about their "breaking news" broadcasts where they show up on the scene of a murder or something and start yapping from the hip. Basically all they say is "we don't know anything for sure at this poiint but we're going to talk about it anyway." IMO, that is walking a pretty thin line.

But you can't just say everyone speaking anoymously should have kept their mouth shut because then the big guys would be able to run over the little guy without mercy. Sometimes the only thing the little guys have on their side is numbers, and I don't think one little guy should have to risk his life to do the right thing for the rest of us. Whistleblowing is one way the big guys (govt. and business) are kept in check by the rest of us. In other words, "accountability and accuracy" is something everyone should adhere to, even the big guys.

[MichaelRW]

Anonymous source or not, I pretty much look at anything coming out of the main stream media with skepticism. I look for "the spin", lies, fabrications, slanted view point, well you get the idea. It is a sad state of affairs that the media has fallen so low.

[squeakfinder]

No. I don't think the press should use anonymous sources. It's just another way for them to lie about Republicans.

[Headrope]

Absolutley not!  The simple fact that saying "I can only speak on the condition of anonymity because I am not authourized to speak to the press" is proof that that person needs to keep their damn mouth shut.  If the information needed to be out there then that person would have authorization to speak.  On top of that chances are if the person does not have authorization to speak then they don't know the whole story.  The press uses the line as a get out of jail free card.  They can drum up any kind of a story they want to get ratings.  If it turns out to be false no biggie.  It was the anonymous source that lied not the news people.  The news gets its nose poked in to many places as it is now.  A good example is Iraq.  We're constantly updated with bombs going off and troop deaths.  Vietnam (so I'm told) was the same way.  I ask you this:  Could we have won WWII had the press of today been present then?  I doubt it. 

Iraq is an interesting example to use considering the military invites journalists to imbed within units and report what they see.

[Headrope]

Yes they should, how else are we supposed to get inaccurate stories!

Good question. What's the answer?

[Headrope]

Everyone is plainly full of s**t & that's all you need to know.

... said an anonymous source (or is Old Moparz not a screen name)?

[Headrope]

nice rant bro!!  you hit it right on the head. 

On a related note, I heard about some paper somewhere that's had to can 5 or 6 of it's reporters, because of low sales. IMO, that's one of the best ways to make these jerks take notice...just cancel your subscriptions! Eventually, they just might get the hint.

You heard about some paper somewhere that had to can 5 or 6 of its reporters because of low sales? From who? Which newspaper? Was it five or six reporters? Low advertising sales or low subscription sales?
How will cancelling my subscription to a paper where I live have an effect on a newsroom at some paper somewhere?

[Headrope]

No. I don't think the press should use anonymous sources. It's just another way for them to lie about Republicans.

... that assertion is just absurd.

[dkn1997]

Anonymous source or not, I pretty much look at anything coming out of the main stream media with skepticism. I look for "the spin", lies, fabrications, slanted view point, well you get the idea. It is a sad state of affairs that the media has fallen so low.

man, I like this thread, you guys are reading my mind....and if we had imbeds (there were some) during ww2, it would not have made much of a difference.  Back then, there was a different notion of sacrifice and life.  Also, the danger was more immediate.  If we did not stop Japan and Germany, they would have taken over the world in short order and everyone knew it.  I get the feeling that a lot of people think that the terrorists are not the same type of threat, or at least not as immediate.

[Headrope]

I find it ironic that so many who expect a "fair and balanced" presentation of the facts without any attempt at interpretation are so willing to make assertions based on their own personal opinion.

[Old Moparz]

Everyone is plainly full of s**t & that's all you need to know.

... said an anonymous source (or is Old Moparz not a screen name)?

True, it's a screen name, but there are many members on the site who I've met at car shows. A lot of us have photos of ourselves posted, including myself. What makes me an anonymous source? I've seen photos of members & eventually met them in person to match a user name to a face with a real name. Having said that, the opposite is also true. Members have met me, & have also matched my face, ugly or not, with a user name & a real name.

Even if I were to remain an anonymous source as you state, the big difference with a few words posted under the user name "Old Moparz" & someone in the media, is that i didn't get paid to write a story that others are expected to believe. I don't need to be trusted & accountable to post my own opinion on a forum, but it sure as hell helps where I work. I'd lose my job otherwise. And as a side note, I'll be the first one to admit that I can easily be full of s**t.

Bob

Iraq is an interesting example to use considering the military invites journalists to imbed within units and report what they see.

Do you actually believe the press is invited by the military in all circumstances? You wouldn't think there is a slim, outside chance, that they're invited to just a few of the key ones that are PR moves?

I find it ironic that so many who expect a "fair and balanced" presentation of the facts without any attempt at interpretation are so willing to make assertions based on their own personal opinion.

I was glad you said "so many" & not all.   

[dkn1997]

I find it ironic that so many who expect a "fair and balanced" presentation of the facts without any attempt at interpretation are so willing to make assertions based on their own personal opinion.

this thread is more about accuracy than it is about interpretation.   There's always gonna be interpretation....but what good is any interpretation, fair or otherwise, if the whole story is based on a source who may or may not be telling the truth.  when your name's not on it, it's a lot easier to lie.

[bull]

I find it ironic that so many who expect a "fair and balanced" presentation of the facts without any attempt at interpretation are so willing to make assertions based on their own personal opinion.

this thread is more about accuracy than it is about interpretation.   There's always gonna be interpretation....but what good is any interpretation, fair or otherwise, if the whole story is based on a source who may or may not be telling the truth.  when your name's not on it, it's a lot easier to lie.

That is why reporters with ethics (and those who want to keep their jobs) verify what's being said by anonymous sources. The anonymity is not there so someone can spew a bunch of BS and have it go straight to print, it's there to protect a source from certain fallout if his job, livelihood, life, etc., could be in danger. I would say more often than not, if someone reports something damning and inaccurate, they will quickly find themselves in a heap of trouble with all sorts of people. There are laws in place to deal with libel.

[is_it_EVER_done?]

What an excellent topic. I must say that I am SHOCKED by the majority of the posts as I would have thought that there would be no objection to "anonymous sources", as that is the real difference (as I see it) between us, "the good ol' US of A", and the rest of the world.

I get the impression that those that are against this are so because your belief system has been challenged, if not outright proven wrong. As for myself, I want truth even if it is MY Ox that is getting gored.

Were it not for the anonymous whistle blowers we would not know about the policy of the Catholic church to hide/protect child molesting Priests, - The tobacco industries attempt to hide ANY proof of the harmfull effects of smoking, - Attempts by the power companies to try to pass off duplicate x-rays of welds in nuclear reactors, - Ford motor company's decision to produce Pintos with a known gas tank flaw that they knew would cause deaths and disfigurements because they calculated out that it would cost less money to pay the court awards (as long as they viciously defended themselves), than it would to re-engineer the flaw, - That us taxpayers were/are paying for $600 dollar hammers and $5,000 dollar toilet seats, - Countless attempts to hide drug side effects, or outright failures by the drug industry, - And countless Thousands of other despicable acts by corporate and individual entities.

Personally I applaud those few that have the moral fortitude and social conscience to "break the law" by standing up and providing evidence, or even just a lead, so that the truth may be discovered. After all, If what is said is blatantly false, it is proven so, but the truths that have been exposed by the few have saved incalculable lives, vast sums of money, and helped keep at least a bare minimum of political decisions/acts in line.

Unfortunately, the truth is seldom pretty, and in some instances can be highly upsetting due to a forced admission that our own personall beliefs are flawed. As for me, give me truth anytime. Even if it hurts my feelings by proving me wrong!

P.S. To those that compare Bushes war (as a lifelong Republican I voted for him in the FIRST election) to WWII. All I can say is that you should take a long hard look at your ideals and beliefs, as such a comparison is not only a slap in the face to true patriots and those that poses actual "humanity", but is downright dangerous for the future generations!

[Troy]

I should point out that I'm not speaking of the whistleblowers because, technically, they generally aren't doing anything illegal. They can be anonymous sources to expose the truth. Mostly what I see is people who just can't wait to leak a sensational story (about celebrities or political figures) but don't want to lose their job over it. Example: Insider trading is illegal but telling the newspaper that your company dumped toxic waste in the river is hardly anything they can sue you for (as long as you're right). Fire you? Yes, but if you have morals and backbone you'd quit any way. If you signed a confidentiality agreement with a company then technically they are legally within their rights to fire and sue you for spilling secrets. That's part of the job and what you should expect for speaking out against something that is wrong. When your job involves national security and/or international relations then you are trusted to keep your mouth shut. Senators blabbing about the details of a security meeting or the results of a secret vote just to seem self important should not be protected - they are looking for personal gain. There is a difference. The same can be said about most whistleblowers when they only divulge company secrets *after* being fired for doing a poor job. They are solely looking for retribution. If the information makes the world a better place then that's great but the motives behind the "anonymous source" intrigue me.

I'd prefer the truth over anything but if I believe in something then I don't hide. I guess not everyone feels the same.

Troy

[bull]

There's always a dark side to every seemingly virtuous principal it seems.

[Lowprofile]

They say the Truth will set you Free..........I guess we could always ask Dan Rather?