Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: denydenydeny
On the other side, the people saying the meeting did not take place have never been named. I don't imagine they will ever be named

Yes, the "unnamed" government sources have been busy planting disinformation. The media is responsible for the reliability of the information they print on the basis of "unnamed" sources. Reporters who pass on "disinformation" or any information that later turns out to be falsehoods deliberately planted to mislead the public should be fired and their so-called sources revealed to other journalists. Using a reporter to deliberately plant a lie in the media should be enough to break the non-disclosure agreement between the media and sources. Closing the direct pipeline to the public for disinformation campaigns is the job of the media. Only having the names of these "sources" printed will deter government agents from deliberately lying to the public to cover up misdeeds. Since the media seem unable to undertand this, most sensible people don't believe much of what is printed on the basis of "unnamed" sources.

20 posted on 06/05/2002 4:30:28 AM PDT by politeia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: politeia
I can't recall a single instance I have ever heard of of a reporter getting angry because his source gave him information that turned out to be false.

For what it's worth, the reporters on that arch-purveyor of government lies, the Washington Post, have for some reason mostly not signed their byline to the articles in the paper today (a special 125th anniversary edition).

21 posted on 06/05/2002 7:39:10 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson