Originally Posted by
atotaltotalfan2001
No legitimate news agency uses a story based soley on an annonymous tip. Just doesn't happen. Reporters need some way to verify the information. TV news stations, especially the local ones, do cheat sometimes, though. I don't know why: overly ambitious reporters? Or a desperate attempt to pump up ratings?
Anyway, annonymous sources have a role in news gathering. But it's a narrow one that requires several things. How well does the reporter know the source? Does the source have a reliable history? Does the source have an axe to grind? Does the source have documents to back up his/her story? Is there a way to verify what the source says with another source. Even the Watergate reporters were required to have at least a second confirmation -- and a third or fourth, if they could manage it.
Using annonymous sources is a slippery slope. Reporters and their editors know that. Plus the use of those sources causes a lot distrust in the community, with good reason.
Your hoping these statements are true - maybe in journalism school - not in our Politically charged world.
Lets see what happens to Mr.Clark - once the elections over - will the press - if he is found innocent of illegal wrong doing - expose the source - No !
If the person charged is - found innocent - how often does the press go back and say , with equal enthusiasm and print volume ,
"Well Mr.Morretti received a tip from the Party Committeeman and just figured it was valid " - we were wrong
-
can you say ,
- LAWSUIT ! or how about END OF YOUR CAREER !
Give me a break - if you believe that second third witness crud - you never have had to deal with the press on these type events.
You must also believe , "Mr.Keane isn't a career Politician."
or the "Moon is made of cheese"
Anty M. - Anty M. - I had the strangest dream !