Monday, November 07, 2005

Beware Of The Unnamed Source

I have noticed lately how sloppy news articles and editorial statements are getting these days. We are being thrown a lot of information with unconfirmed sources. The newspapers expect us to trust their sources, but the last two years have taught us newspapers aren't verifying their own reporters, let alone their sources.

How many times have you heard or read something alone these lines: "a longtime, and angry, GOP strategist," or "a senior White House aide," or "a source within the office of the White House," or "a GOP pollster?"

It is time to get rid of the unnamed sources. There hasn't been a single unnamed source without a hidden agenda (and that includes Deep Throat). However, the press is the one deciding who's agenda is o.k. to base stories on and use as fact. If the story needs a source for verification find the name of real person or don't run the story, it really is that simple.

Reading a news article with an unnamed source is the same as reading fiction. As you flip through the news today make a mental note of how many unnamed sources you hear.

"I believe you will find the press is very sloppy in the confirmation of their sources, but yet the general public will still believe them," a source within the In-A-Word blog website said this morning in between bites of a bagel.


The Publican said...

Redbook reporter refises to reveal recipe source.

Jeremie Jordan said...

The security of Grandma's home cooking demands the integrity of the Redbook reporter.

Let Walsh's comment be a reminder to everyone to go read the Onion!

Go Now!!!!