FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[MrPots]

And this exemplifies how far this country has fallen.

[bobabode]

"How do you use an anonymous source? The mysteries of journalism everyone should know."

A PSA on journalism by Whell's favorite newspaper.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.6c7c9b8f9bf1

"When Houston Chronicle reporters want to use information from an unnamed source in a news story, they have to jump through a few hoops first.
A senior editor has to approve it, and know who the source is. A single unnamed source is rarely enough to go ahead with a story — there must be two sources with the same firsthand knowledge. And one of a handful of top editors must sign off on its use before publication.
“The one exception to the two-source rule is when we have a ‘golden source’ — for example, the police chief talking about an investigation,” said Nancy Barnes, the Chronicle’s executive editor.****
The vetting process is similar at many large news organizations — and it’s just one of the practices that journalists assume, perhaps incorrectly, that news consumers understand.
Anonymous sourcing is one of the least-understood of the mysteries.

“A lot of people seem to think that when we use anonymous sources, we don’t even know who they are — that they’re anonymous to us,” said Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery.
That’s definitely not the case. Anonymity is granted to known sources under tightly controlled circumstances because they can’t speak on the record with their names attached for a variety of reasons." WaPo

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by bobabode

"How do you use an anonymous source? The mysteries of journalism everyone should know."

A PSA on journalism by Whell's favorite newspaper.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.6c7c9b8f9bf1

"When Houston Chronicle reporters want to use information from an unnamed source in a news story, they have to jump through a few hoops first.
A senior editor has to approve it, and know who the source is. A single unnamed source is rarely enough to go ahead with a story — there must be two sources with the same firsthand knowledge. And one of a handful of top editors must sign off on its use before publication.
“The one exception to the two-source rule is when we have a ‘golden source’ — for example, the police chief talking about an investigation,” said Nancy Barnes, the Chronicle’s executive editor.****
The vetting process is similar at many large news organizations — and it’s just one of the practices that journalists assume, perhaps incorrectly, that news consumers understand.
Anonymous sourcing is one of the least-understood of the mysteries.

“A lot of people seem to think that when we use anonymous sources, we don’t even know who they are — that they’re anonymous to us,” said Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery.
That’s definitely not the case. Anonymity is granted to known sources under tightly controlled circumstances because they can’t speak on the record with their names attached for a variety of reasons." WaPo

Wow!
WaPo trying to add "substantive" to anonymous.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Wow!
WaPo trying to add "substantive" to anonymous.

I’d say “deep throat” was pretty substantive. Remained anonymous for years afterward.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Chicks

I’d say “deep throat” was pretty substantive. Remained anonymous for years afterward.

So many articles (from various organs) are loaded with anonymous that WaPo sees the need to address the issue. They know that serious public do not like anonymous.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

So many articles (from various organs) are loaded with anonymous that WaPo sees the need to address the issue. They know that serious public do not like anonymous.

“Serious public” fully understands anonymous sources. It’s the Fox “News” and Limblow types, with their 4th grade understanding of what real news is, who don’t understand anonymous sources.

[finnbow]

[nailer]

Originally Posted by MrPots

And this exemplifies how far this country has fallen.

This is true if one buys into the historical myth taught to us in school and reinforced by mainstream consumer history.

Although when it comes to relative national wealth, we have indeed fallen a long way since the end of WWII and will continue to do so. Thing is, as a nation we are still very relatively wealthy.