re: #256 Soap_Man

There is a big difference between using an unnamed source to get important info out to the public and using it to bring out the crazy.

It’s not all b.s. because I’m assuming media outlets often have to use the unnamed source because it is the only way to convey valuable information.

Of course, it is b.s. sometimes. I don’t like Palin, but all the post-election crap about unnamed sources coming out to call her a dumb diva was horseshit. Unnamed sources are for information valuable to the public, not for petty insults.

Using unnamed sources is always problematic. It used to be completely unacceptable, for the simple reason that there’s no way for the public to distinguish between an unnamed source and a work of pure fiction. Before the Watergate story was published, the editorial board at the Washington Post had serious misgivings over going to press with a story based solely on unnamed sources, fearing it would damage their credibility*. Although their use is now more common, it is still viewed somewhat askance, and stories based on named, verifiable sources carry much, much more weight. At best, use of an unnamed source should never be more than a stepping stone along the way to verifiable sources of information; the risk of abuse remains high, and argues against their use.

——————

*The revelation that William Felt was Deep Throat only adds to the problem. Felt had an obvious axe to grind, having been passed over for promotion to head the FBI after Hoover’s death, and had he been cited as the source of the Watergate story, it’s credibility would have been questioned on those grounds.