Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

When To Trust Unnamed Sources


Farmer77

Recommended Posts

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

The various investigations into the Trump administration and its alleged ties to Russia are hard to follow. The allegations are sometimes muddled, the probes are still ongoing, and all sides in the dispute are leaking information that favors their points of view. These stories are also hard to follow because few officials are willing to put their names behind their claims and comments, leading to a stream of stories rife with unnamed sources.

What’s a reader to do? Well, here’s a guide to unnamed sources in government/politics/Washington stories — who they are, how reporters use them, and how to tell if you should trust what they say.

 

This is a really good article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I'm going to hazard a guess, if they accuse Mr. Trump of anything, but particularly of any involvement with any shadowy Russkies at any time at all ever? <_<

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

... I'm going to hazard a guess, if they accuse Mr. Trump of anything, but particularly of any involvement with any shadowy Russkies at any time at all ever? <_<

LOL I almost said something to the effect of "and the answer isnt whenever they say something you like" 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unnamed sources are a poor substitute for sworn testimony and facts. Propagated by people motivated by monetary gain, fame or a political axe to grind, anything presented as such should be taken with a grain of salt. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Unnamed sources are a poor substitute for sworn testimony and facts. Propagated by people motivated by monetary gain, fame or a political axe to grind, anything presented as such should be taken with a grain of salt. 

Best case scenario - depending on circumstance of course - unnamed sources are a prelude to sworn testimony and facts. In many cases without the media having the ability to report using unnamed sources and facts, in order to protect the source, we could never get to the sworn testimony part. 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farmer77 said:

Best case scenario - depending on circumstance of course - unnamed sources are a prelude to sworn testimony and facts. Without the media having the ability to report using unnamed sources and facts, in order to protect the source, we could never get to the sworn testimony part. 

 

Non sequitur. Best not to believe anything until you have sworn testimony and facts. Such an "unnamed source" was the downfall of Dan Rather, who assumed and propagated something as factual concerning George Bush which turned out to be fraudulent. Reporters will do their thing, whatever. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Such an "unnamed source" was the downfall of Dan Rather, who assumed and propagated something as factual concerning George Bush which turned out to be fraudulent.

Thats one of the points in the article, cast a weary on stories which use a single unnamed source, whereas stories involving multiple sources who corroborate each other are more likely to be accurate. 

Rather had somewhat comically gone off the deep end at that point. He was so rabidly anti bush that he makes today's CNN seem calm and collected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the question is when to trust unnamed sources. It's do you trust a media outlet that has lied using unnamed sources. Blatant absolute lies. The answer is never. 

All main stream media is dead to me. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Thats one of the points in the article, cast a weary on stories which use a single unnamed source, whereas stories involving multiple sources who corroborate each other are more likely to be accurate. 

Rather had somewhat comically gone off the deep end at that point. He was so rabidly anti bush that he makes today's CNN seem calm and collected. 

CNN has long dropped way further then Rather ever went. Not that I would have listened to a word they said long before Trumped entered the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Thats one of the points in the article, cast a weary on stories which use a single unnamed source, whereas stories involving multiple sources who corroborate each other are more likely to be accurate. 

Rather had somewhat comically gone off the deep end at that point. He was so rabidly anti bush that he makes today's CNN seem calm and collected. 

Some of the articles masquerading as journalism concerning Trump are pretty comical.  I mean, if they found out Trump's boxer shorts are made in France, they'd give it a full page spread. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, preacherman76 said:

CNN has long dropped way further then Rather ever went. Not that I would have listened to a word they said long before Trumped entered the game. 

Just because they say things you dont like doesn't mean they're wrong and when they are, as witnessed just recently, they retract the story and people lose their jobs. Which kinda goes back to the original article, dont trust stories that cite a single unnamed source. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Some of the articles masquerading as journalism concerning Trump are pretty comical.  I mean, if they found out Trump's boxer shorts are made in France, they'd give it a full page spread. 

of course they wouldn't. We know it's China. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

of course they wouldn't. We know it's China. 

"Clear the presses, boys, we've got us a headline!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Just because they say things you dont like doesn't mean they're wrong and when they are, as witnessed just recently, they retract the story and people lose their jobs. Which kinda goes back to the original article, dont trust stories that cite a single unnamed source. 

That only happened cause they have been under the microscope. 

Dude I left main stream back when they helped spread lies that led to the deaths of millions of Iraqies. I refuse to listen to anyone with that much intentional blood on their hands. Let's not even get into all the things they didn't bother to report over the many years. 

If you want to listen to paid for globalist media, you go right head. Just don't be surprised when you find yourself lied to again. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, preacherman76 said:

That only happened cause they have been under the microscope. 

Dude I left main stream back when they helped spread lies that led to the deaths of millions of Iraqies. I refuse to listen to anyone with that much intentional blood on their hands. Let's not even get into all the things they didn't bother to report over the many years. 

If you want to listen to paid for globalist media, you go right head. Just don't be surprised when you find yourself lied to again. 

Oh dont get me wrong. I don't immediately trust anything anyone says, I just believe in taking in as much information as possible. Hell July 2nd 2013 the rule preventing our government from using propaganda against us was repealed, we literally can't trust any news outlet blindly. 

We've talked about this before but I bounce around to all kinds of sources daily. Its interesting to watch the networks evolve as time goes on. I couldnt read CNN during the election without blowing a gasket, their pro clinton bias was absurd and I loved RT due to their willingness to publish anti clinton stories. Now RT wont publish anything negative of Trump while CNN has become a much needed voice of opposition - I still read them both daily however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

We've talked about this before but I bounce around to all kinds of sources daily. Its interesting to watch the networks evolve as time goes on. I couldnt read CNN during the election without blowing a gasket, their pro clinton bias was absurd and I loved RT due to their willingness to publish anti clinton stories. Now RT wont publish anything negative of Trump while CNN has become a much needed voice of opposition - I still read them both daily however. 

Well isn't that pretty much what you were talking about here? 

Quote

LOL I almost said something to the effect of "and the answer isnt whenever they say something you like" 

And if by "opposition" you mean "rabidly clamouring for war with everywhere and everyone", I suppose you might be right. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Well isn't that pretty much what you were talking about here? 

Yeah , I think unnamed sources are a keystone of democracy and found the article to be informative 

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

And if by "opposition" you mean "rabidly clamouring for war with everywhere and everyone", I suppose you might be right. 

Nah, by opposition I mean a voice to combat the most powerful man in the world peddling "alternative facts" and waging war on information. The dude actually floated the idea of changing the 1st amendment. Thats a pretty big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh dont get me wrong. I don't immediately trust anything anyone says, I just believe in taking in as much information as possible. Hell July 2nd 2013 the rule preventing our government from using propaganda against us was repealed, we literally can't trust any news outlet blindly. 

We've talked about this before but I bounce around to all kinds of sources daily. Its interesting to watch the networks evolve as time goes on. I couldnt read CNN during the election without blowing a gasket, their pro clinton bias was absurd and I loved RT due to their willingness to publish anti clinton stories. Now RT wont publish anything negative of Trump while CNN has become a much needed voice of opposition - I still read them both daily however. 

It doesn't bother you at all knowing they would literally try to put people back to sleep soon as their guy gets in? They represent the Democratic Party. Or I should say the globalist party. The only time they gave Trump credit was when he was bombing someone. Even they will back off Trump if he is quenching their overlords thirst for blood. 

Far as I'm concerned there is no value in listening to anything they have to say about anything. Every report they put out is to achieve an agenda. You would have to be a fool to think otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

It doesn't bother you at all knowing they would literally try to put people back to sleep soon as their guy gets in?

Of course it does. That said though Trump is, in my opinion, a clear and present danger to our nation. The dude literally floated the idea of changing the 1st amendment and that was before much of the other lunacy we have endured since January. 

4 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Far as I'm concerned there is no value in listening to anything they have to say about anything. Every report they put out is to achieve an agenda. You would have to be a fool to think otherwise.

Its weird for me to be in this situation but two old sayings come to mind: "Politics make strange bedfellows" and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" . Of course they have an agenda, right now however the first half of their agenda (impeding trump) aligns with the best interests of the nation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah , I think unnamed sources are a keystone of democracy and found the article to be informative 

Nah, by opposition I mean a voice to combat the most powerful man in the world peddling "alternative facts" and waging war on information. The dude actually floated the idea of changing the 1st amendment. Thats a pretty big deal.

Why would George Soros want to change the 1st Amendment ? :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

It's kind of easy these days.  If the President tweets about the "leaks" after the story, it's probably true.

I'm glad to see that your time on this planet hasn't rendered you jaded and cynical, Gromdor :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Of course it does. That said though Trump is, in my opinion, a clear and present danger to our nation. The dude literally floated the idea of changing the 1st amendment and that was before much of the other lunacy we have endured since January. 

Its weird for me to be in this situation but two old sayings come to mind: "Politics make strange bedfellows" and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" . Of course they have an agenda, right now however the first half of their agenda (impeding trump) aligns with the best interests of the nation. 

Full blown war most likely leading to WW3 is in our best interest? Trump dropped a couple bombs on a Syrian air strip, and suddenly he was a hero for the day. I literally heard Van Jones say "today he became the president". You are listening to wolves who will tell you what ever they need to so they can go to war. If you want that as a bedfellow, whatever. But you know what they say about those who lay with dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

When To Trust Unnamed Sources

 

 

 

When it's not CNN?

Unnamed sources cannot be automatically discounted when they come from a reputable news outlet, since it would cause them an incredible amount of trouble, and almost all of them have excellent vetting processes before going down that route. 

It's not unheard of for a journalist to trick his editors, but the suggestion that the people in charge of NBC, BBC, NYT, FOX or any of the other reputable news outlets would fabricate sources is ridiculous as it would end the entire careers of any who were involved.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not necessarily that they fabricated sources. It's that their sources are full of s***. 

If they could have, they would literally have us believe Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed once slept on by 0bama. 

These are the people you are believing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.