Evil of journalism: Anonymous sources

USA Today ^ | 18 Jan 04 | Al Neuharth

[xzins]

So now it has happened at USA TODAY.

[Old Sarge]

memo to Neuarth: We Will Never Trust You Again.

[polemikos]

That, and pursue truth instead of "balance".

[xzins]

An anonymous source told me that Neuarth speaks for world terrorism.

I guess his job now is to prove that he doesn't. I, of course, cannot reveal my anonymous source.

[Zipporah]

Interesting.. I met someone a last week that was traveling through my area who told me he was formerly a national journalist. He now works for an airline. I asked him why would you leave such an interesting profession. He replied, "there is no free press in this country."

[muggs]

I've come to the conclusion that most reporters make up a lot of what they write.

Several times in the last few months I have seen a reporter write that I had "no comment" on a certain story. I guess he saves time by reading my mind.

I keep waiting for him to ask me a question, so I can respond, "What's the point, nobody reads the Cincinnati Post". Wonder if he would print that comment.

[xzins]

How bout them Bearcats?

They're my team, my alma mater, but beating Pitino at Freedom Hall will be too much this week.

It will be a victory if they lose by 4-8 points, the advantage of homecourt normally assumed by many in the team-weighting game.

[jolie560]

Journalism is not a profession--it is an entertainment device.

Facts are not checked, biases and random quotes are included in articles.

Watching and reading "News" is like reading someone's blog-site.

[xzins]

exactly

In fact, I'm in favor of a return to "reporting" and a rejection of "journalism."

Give me the straight facts: "who, what, when, where, why, how." Let me do the commentary internally.

If you want to provide "balance" then do it on the editorial page.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The only way to win the war against this evil is for journalists at all levels to ban all anonymous sources.

Until or unless we do, the public won't trust us, and we put the First Amendment in jeopardy.

Balderdash. This does not endanger the First Amendment; it would be more likely to save it.

The First Amendment doesn't say that journalism is the truth; it says, "Let the reader beware." It is the propaganda of journalism that "journalism is objective" which threatens the First Amendment by allowing the passage and upholding of campaign finance "reform."

The worse the "scandals" of journalists commiting journalism (that is, committing politics) the better, if the SCotUS is paying attention. A big if, that . . .

[Cicero]

Humm. Apparently his lies included a story claiming that there was proof that the Serbs committed genocide in Serbia.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-01-13-usatoday-statement_x.htm

A great many Freepers know that most of those Serbian genocide stories were lies, promoted by the clinton administration to justify NATO war crimes in Yugoslavia.

This is not a surprise. Anonymous sources are only one of many ways in which journalists lie. The basic problem is that liberal journalists have NO respect for the truth. They think that ideology is more important than truth, or with Pontius Pilate that there is no such thing as truth.

Probably Al Neuharth is just annoyed that USA Today got caught.

[xzins]

It's seems like an anonymous source should have to provide some form of information to prove that their information is true.

I normally discount them. Another thing would be if the journalist (Drudge) built up a reputation for consistency and truth with his anonymous sources.

Let the reader beware.

They have found more mass graves in Iraq than they've still to find in Serbia.

[Blue Screen of Death]

Journalism is not a profession--it is an entertainment device.

Actually for print journalism the whole purpose is to get you to pick up the paper and see an advertisment for womens blouses 1/3rd off at J.C. Pennys. They are there to attract people in the hopes that those people will also read the ads.

[CyberAnt]

"anonymous sources often tell more than they know"

And .. I agree that because of that, journalists often write more than they heard.

I also agree that anonymous sources is a disgrace.

[speekinout]

Anonymous sources have been big draws ever since Woodward & Bernstein got rich and famous from one. Every ambitious reporter wants to replicate that feat, and their editors encourage them.

It doesn't seem to help that many of us have stopped reading the newspapers that indulge heavily in this practice.

I just don't believe anything unless a knowledgeable source is quoted. I say "knowledgeable" because I also don't believe what someone like Kerry tells us about the Bush Admin.