Brian Peacock wrote:Forty Two wrote:...
Why would anyone who is merely "familiar with the investigation" need anonymity here?
...
Because they asked for it as a condition of their 'off the record', as they say, input?
I've previously demonstrated, with posting sources, such as New York Times' journalistic ethics policy on anonymous sources that the mere request for anonymity is insufficient to justify granting anonymity. There are too many reasons and motives have for reporting things to the media. One thing done often is to float trial balloons for policies and narratives, and use the media as propaganda and publicity. Absent a significant need on an important issue that cannot be reported without it, anonymity should not be granted. It's the exception, not the rule.
Brian Peacock wrote:
It's a simple matter to imply that news articles that cite unnamed sources are indistinguishable from a fabricated fiction, but what's the rational alternatve to reporting unnamed sources? And the time spent on delegitimising unnamed sources is obviously proportional to the time spent avoiding the implications of the report.
I have not implied that. I have merely identified that there is no substance to this article. When one looks at what the author actually says, he knows nothing. He has gathered no actual facts that have been reported. Someone who's level of access and personal knowledge is completely unknown says that he thinks that attorneys in the DOJ have identified six possible suspects who may, or may not, be indicted, on issues related to hacking of the DNC. We don't know anything as to who, what, where, when, why or how -- nothing. It's not even a story.
The rational alternative is to follow the well-thought-out journalistic ethics policies of major news outlets concerning the US of anonymous sources.
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ic-editor/
There are no "implications" of this report. It's an article that says someone who doesn't really "know" thinks that other people who do know the facts "might" have identified some suspects who "might" be prosecuted. No other facts are known, and even the facts that were reported were not known. It's reporting mere hearsay.
The amazing thing is how regularly the articles about Trump have no named sources. It's not the exception. It's the rule.
"Anonymous sources are withdrawals against the bank balance built up by more transparent practices in modern journalism."
News accounts that rely on confidential sources do not contain within themselves the information required for us to trust them. By definition we cannot "go to the source" because the source is hidden. If we extend our trust to such reports, we do so because of reputation: the reporter's reputation, or more often the news brand's.
That term, "officials said" is relatively hard to trust. We can't go to those people and ask: did you really say that? We can't decide how credible they are, and act accordingly. Instead we have to trust the Washington Post, which gave us this report, and its reporters. It might be rational to do so, but it's also subtractive. We are drawing on reserves of trust built up by previous acts of journalism that told us the Post could be trusted. Some acts of reporting add to the bank account, others draw upon reserves of trust. To put it another way, when trust is the currency, stories that depend on anonymous sources are expensive.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/18/politics ... index.html
Here is the Washington Post's Policy -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00849.html
One of the purposes, it says, is if you have to use a confidential source, it's supposed to be because you will get a fuller, better information than if the source was named. Did we get ANY information in the article about the possible prosecutions? Someone "familiar" with an investigation (no details as to what he knows about it, or how he's involved) says that other people (we don't know what their role is either) may have identified suspect hackers and may or may not prosecute. No other details. So, that's the pay-off received for the expense of an anonymous source.
What's the risk? Whoever is reporting this may have a reason to want the idea spread that there have been Russian hackers identified and they are about to be prosecuted. There is clearly a conceivable political motive that might exist. And there is a risk that the source was taken for a ride himself, and was given false info. Or, there is a risk that the source just heard wrong. Or, there is a risk that the source heard it right, but the reporter misunderstood what the source was saying.
There were reports of Adam Schiff serving as an unnamed source and "leaking" info. If theinfo came from him, would it be important to know that? He's familiar with the investigation, isn't he?
http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/08/18- ... fake-news/“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
It's a news report, not an encyclopedia entry.
