Anonymous sources........should or shouldn't be allowed in reporting the news?

An anonymous source is not "open press." It's opinion, often libel, that's presented as fact without any material basis.

Articles that have anonymous sourcing should be required to have a warning after the title.

They should be allowed. But they should be corroborated. And they should be written with skepticism.

Some of the most important journalism has been predicated upon anonymous sources. Unfortunately journalism has died and morphed into narrative crafting for most major outlets.

Using anonymous sources leverages they credibility of the journalist or news organization, so the Atlantic might as well be pissing in the wind as it has none.

Short of a violation of slander/defamation laws, not much can be done about it given our rightful deference to 1st Amendment protections. But at this stage I personally don't feel it's at all unreasonable to basically tether MSM to the Democratic Party and judge them as a whole unit. Judge the media wing just the same as the political affairs wing, i.e. believable/credible or not, and in fact the media can and will be a detriment to the Democratic Party at the end of the day. But that's the way they want it, so they got it. Getting it.

Without anomymous sources, the suffix “-gate” would have no meaning today.

Anonymous sources are only acceptable if they can make trump look bad. Doesn't matter if they are true or not.


Wikileaks published actual content from Democrats themselves, that proved the Democrat party is corrupt. That content was considered unusable because not every person involved in collecting that content was made public.

As for the anonymous sources the msm always use.. I honestly believe that there are no anonymous sources. I believe it's just the msm making up lies and then using a make believe "anonymous source" as shielding, to protect them from lawsuits.

Anyone can make something up when attributing something to an anonymous source. Look up Stephen Glass, a 1990s writer for The New Republic and other publications who did just that.

Allowed by who?

The media is private business.

However, this practice should be condemned and ridiculed.

Should not.

They are basically fan fiction for Democrats.

quote:

---

quote:
should or shouldn't be allowed


Should or shouldn't be allowed by whom, exactly?

---

I haven’t decided yet. There’s something really fricked up when the Resistance Media can orchestrate a coordinated attack with the Dim Marxists Party to attack their common enemies, in this instance, Trump.

I’m really close to leaning towards some ethical standards or law that requires verifiable sources when the reporting is targeted at an individual. We’re seeing nothing more the slander reporting by the MSM when Trump’s the main focus of the reporting. The MSM has morphed into a Dim propaganda apparatus who’s primary mission is to destroy the President.

The MSM are nothing more than political arsonists who disseminate false information knowing the target of their attacks have no recourse but to deny or ignore the BS....either way the victim is left to put out the fire as the MSM moves on to light the next political fire. The real issue is there’s little a person can do about it unless you’re fortunate like Nick Sandman and you have proof to refute the MSM’s lies.