[blackshoe]

In an article on the resignation of Christy Romer as head of the Council of Economic Advisers, "anonymous sources" were twice cited as providing information which apparently they felt they should not have provided, or that their bosses would feel they should not have provided — else why insist on anonymity? But my real question is "why should I believe anything said by somebody who refuses to stand by his statements and identify himself?"

[OleBerg]

blackshoe, on Aug 6 2010, 06:21 AM, said:

In an article on the resignation of Christy Romer as head of the Council of Economic Advisers, "anonymous sources" were twice cited as providing information which apparently they felt they should not have provided, or that their bosses would feel they should not have provided — else why insist on anonymity? But my real question is "why should I believe anything said by somebody who refuses to stand by his statements and identify himself?"

You shouldn't.

But you should consider if they were right.

Sometimes telling the thruth can get you hurt, so anonymity can be a good idée.

In some parts of the world, it can literally be a life saver.

And you don't automatically believe somebody, just because the admit who they are.

(Anyone who do, pm me. I've got a great investment scheme for you.)

[blackshoe]

The problem is that assertions of fact which cannot be verified cannot be trusted. So often you can't know "if they were right".

And no, you don't automatically believe someone just because they admit who they are. But if they do admit it, their track record regarding the truth can be investigated. Kind of hard to investigate the track record of Anon E. Moose.

[Lobowolf]

It really comes down to whether you trust the journalist. The question is whether the journalist knows his source, verifies (even if the other source(s) won't go on the record, either), and can exercise good judgment. Some are professionally trustworthy, and others will run with any ol' quote to make a story.

[blackshoe]

Good points, Lobo.

[Lobowolf]

<----- Former journalist

[OleBerg]

Lobowolf, on Aug 6 2010, 07:31 AM, said:

... trust the journalist.  ...

Does not compute.

[Oof Arted]

OleBerg, on Aug 6 2010, 04:10 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 6 2010, 07:31 AM, said:

... trust the journalist.  ...

Does not compute.

Never mind trusting Journalists What about Politicians ???

[spotlight7]

Hi:

An honest politician is one that stays bought after they take your money.

But trust one...?

Regards,
Robert

[blackshoe]

I am reminded of Captain Dylan Hunt's comment about the Neitschzean mercenary, Tyr Anasazi, after Tyr became a member of Hunt's crew. He said to another crew member "I trust Tyr... to be Tyr." (From the TV series Andromeda). So I trust politicians to lie, work to increase their personal power at the expense of the common citizen, and generally be worthless scum. I would trust journalists to truthfully report the news, but there aren't any journalists anymore, just talking heads whose job seems to be sensationalizing everything. So if a so-called journalist says "such-and-such is true", I trust that it's much more likely that the "journalist" or his bosses thinks that saying that will make money for the medium (newspaper, TV news show, whatever) than that it is actually true. Makes it really difficult to be the kind of informed citizen that a free society needs, doesn't it?

[barmar]

The original post seems to be equating anonymity with something like Deep Throat from Watergate -- even the journalists didn't know who he was, and they just had to take his word for it. But did Woodward and Bernstein just publish what he leaked, or did they use it as a starting point for further investigation?

More often, it's the case of a journalist who knows the source, but is keeping their identity confidential. As Lobo pointed out, in this case it's a matter of how much you trust the journalist -- it's his duty to determine the anonymous source's integrity and reliability on your behalf.

Whistle blowers often need to hide behind the veil of anonymity to avoid reprisals. Some people may be willing to put themselves on the line, but most look for a compromise that allows them to get the information out while remaining safe. There's no "witness protection" system for whistle blowers.

[Winstonm]

It doesn't surprise me that this story came from AP inside the beltway, as the Washington reporting crowd have become little more than stenographers who print whatever they are told in order not to lose access to "power".

It is a shame, but the lack of credible journalistic watchdogs has made Wikileaks critical to maintaining open government here in the U.S. Without such a group, all we would hear and see would be the government-approved versions.

[TimG]

I've checked the profiles of everyone who has posted in this thread, and none of the information I found revealed any poster's name. I guess we're all anonymous sources.

[Lobowolf]

TimG, on Aug 7 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

I've checked the profiles of everyone who has posted in this thread, and none of the information I found revealed any poster's name. I guess we're all anonymous sources.

Good point, Tim...if that's your real name.

[Oof Arted]

TimG, on Aug 7 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

I've checked the profiles of everyone who has posted in this thread, and none of the information I found revealed any poster's name.  I guess we're all anonymous sources.

rofl


but i ain't a politician