World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Anonymous? Accountable? Credible?
date
newest »
newest »
Yeah, under reporter's privilege they are not required to reveal their sources, thus supposedly serving the public by encouraging ppl to revert to the media. The onus was on responsible reporting and editorial stuff's integrity plus awareness of legal liability under defamation. All is good, however in the atmosphere ranging from less diligent verification of the info to its deliberate distortion, I'm not sure the notion of responsibility and integrity still holds and if it does - where and to what degree..
If accountable shifts to the journalist/editor, etc - who holds them to account?
This could be one example:https://www.theguardian.com/media/201...
Other than that - it can be a more prosaic loss of readers.
I guess we are still interested in free, unthreatened media, but equally - in an unbiased one, while the latter seems to become rarer.
The anon source could be nothing but reporter opinion i.e. fake news in reality. It seems a constant on the BBC at the moment "a source told me" who, when, and did you quote them correctly? "Off the record" is just as badToo often I have seen a journalist or editors opinion backed up with alleged sources told us. It used to be called hearsay or worse.
Alongside statistical manipulation where numbers are misused. Recent example was 36% of businesses threaten to relocate to Europe because of Brexit. This was actually 36% of Institute of Directors Members who bothered to respond at all. IoD has some 70,000 members (individual directors not whole businesses) out of 7.4 million registered businesses in the UK - but makes a good story. BBS reporters quoted as sources told them that reports was underestimate. BBC News reported as fact. Then BBC 'More or Less Programme' https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p070... dammed the statistic. More people watched and listened to the "News" so what would an ordinary person believe.
Philip, manufacturing of consent in action.
Do we need to make a distinction? I'm taking the original question to mean a truly anonymous source...one in which the person does not identify themself to the person they're reporting to. The police take such tips all the time, but they have to investigate before they take those tips as fact.What Nik brings up with the media is that many of their sources are not anonymous, but the press keeps them so to protect their identity. In that case they're not truly anonymous because the reporter knows who they are and that reporter can choose never to listen to that source again if the information turns out false.
J.J. wrote: "Do we need to make a distinction? I'm taking the original question to mean a truly anonymous source...one in which the person does not identify themself to the person they're reporting to. The poli..."True J.J but it's when opinion is dressed up as fact and then used to manipulate other opinions. e.g. building a wall will stop illegal immigration. This is opinion until a wall is actually built and the facts show that illegal immigration reduced as a result. e.g. a major economic downturn in the USA or an upturn in feeding countries could make a potentially similar change.
Without getting into the politics of that argument on this thread I would recommend Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything for debunking many opinions of cause and effect
Back on topic politicians are supposed to have the power of their convictions and believe in the causes they espouse. Why would they want to be anonymous? Unless they have some ulterior motive.
I also don't like the the "leaders" spokesperson being quoted without mentioning their name. Who said it when. Or the alleged "reporter" stating that so and so 'said' something. In they UK they do this in Parliament. Why not show the film of what they actually said as reporters have a habit of missing off context or ignoring the sentence before and after to fit into the pre-arranged 20 second sound bite.
Is anonymous the same as unaccountable? For an anonymous statement cannot be traced back to its author. The consequences of the statement (for good or ill) cannot be assigned back to the author.
If the phrase was "An unaccountable source has ... [provided][stated][informed][etc] ..." would it have credibility?
If unaccountable sources of information are not credible, why is credibility assigned to anonymous sources?
This is a mystery for me.
Can anyone explain this?
P.s. Placed in "World & Current Events," as the operational framework of mass media influences what people think about and what conclusions they draw, hence influencing their responses to current events.