Unnamed Sources Bovine Feces

[kwc57]

From an NBC story headlined "White House officials concerned about being exposed by Mueller report".

White House officials concerned about being exposed by Mueller report

according to multiple witnesses in the investigation

people familiar with the discussions said

One person close to the White House said

Another person familiar with the discussions said

the former White House official said

I don't know about you, but for me I typically move onto the next story when I see a story that quotes nothing but unnamed sources. The unnamed source could be a cat, the guy on the stool next to you at the bar or your dear sweet mama. Hell, you could just make it all up and claim someone told you. The press is asking you to trust them, but given the last two years of them being an active part or "the resistance" and being proved wrong repeatedly, why do they even bother writing these stores? Are there really people that gullible or is their hate so strong that they are seeking any confirmation that feeds their hate? What do you think and do when you see these unnamed sources stories? Accept them as truth or fiction or something in between?

The sad thing, it took three reporters from NBC to write this tiny speculative yarn.

 

[Claudette]

LMAO

 

[Care4all]

Remember

Deep Throat was an unnamed source.

legitimate news sources, unnamed or named, have specific guidelines that have to be followed, before the news outlet will use them...

Sure, occasionally there is a mistake, but in general, they are accurate.

The only way to stop it, is to simply release the full report without redactions, less the classified parts.

transparency, is good

hidden in darkness is bad...

and causes all kinds of speculation, on both sides.

 

[kwc57]

Remember

Deep Throat was an unnamed source.

legitimate news sources, unnamed or named, have specific guidelines that have to be followed, before the news outlet will use them...

Sure, occasionally there is a mistake, but in general, they are accurate.

The only way to stop it, is to simply release the full report without redactions, less the classified parts.

transparency, is good

hidden in darkness is bad...

and causes all kinds of speculation, on both sides.

The journalistic standards of 50 years ago are rarely employed today. I know the value of unnamed sources. Watergate proved to be true. Over the last two years, many in the business have proudly stepped up to being in the resistance. Many, many of the stories produced have proven to be false. Hell, even the cloistered and tight lipped Mueller had to come down from the tower and correct a misinformed story that the outlet continued to stand behind. The 24/7 news cycle coupled with the partisan divide have ended up making for shoddy media standards. Ratings and money are the key motivators, truth be damned. We suffer as a result and the divide grows with the media fanning the flames. It's good for business.

 

[Hellokitty]

From an NBC story headlined "White House officials concerned about being exposed by Mueller report".

White House officials concerned about being exposed by Mueller report

according to multiple witnesses in the investigation

people familiar with the discussions said

One person close to the White House said

Another person familiar with the discussions said

the former White House official said

I don't know about you, but for me I typically move onto the next story when I see a story that quotes nothing but unnamed sources. The unnamed source could be a cat, the guy on the stool next to you at the bar or your dear sweet mama. Hell, you could just make it all up and claim someone told you. The press is asking you to trust them, but given the last two years of them being an active part or "the resistance" and being proved wrong repeatedly, why do they even bother writing these stores? Are there really people that gullible or is their hate so strong that they are seeking any confirmation that feeds their hate? What do you think and do when you see these unnamed sources stories? Accept them as truth or fiction or something in between?

The sad thing, it took three reporters from NBC to write this tiny speculative yarn.

 

[miketx]

Remember

Deep Throat was an unnamed source.

legitimate news sources, unnamed or named, have specific guidelines that have to be followed, before the news outlet will use them...

Sure, occasionally there is a mistake, but in general, they are accurate.

The only way to stop it, is to simply release the full report without redactions, less the classified parts.

transparency, is good

hidden in darkness is bad...

and causes all kinds of speculation, on both sides.

It was his cousins sisters brothers yard mans cabin boys postmans room mates mechanics ex-brother in laws sushi dealer.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Remember

Deep Throat was an unnamed source.

legitimate news sources, unnamed or named, have specific guidelines that have to be followed, before the news outlet will use them...

Sure, occasionally there is a mistake, but in general, they are accurate.

The only way to stop it, is to simply release the full report without redactions, less the classified parts.

transparency, is good

hidden in darkness is bad...

and causes all kinds of speculation, on both sides.

Their is no journalistic integrity now. All mainstream news is heavily liberal and just makes it up as they go. No one should believe them. They sowed it, now they reap it.

 

[kwc57]

From an NBC story headlined "White House officials concerned about being exposed by Mueller report".

White House officials concerned about being exposed by Mueller report

according to multiple witnesses in the investigation

people familiar with the discussions said

One person close to the White House said

Another person familiar with the discussions said

the former White House official said

I don't know about you, but for me I typically move onto the next story when I see a story that quotes nothing but unnamed sources. The unnamed source could be a cat, the guy on the stool next to you at the bar or your dear sweet mama. Hell, you could just make it all up and claim someone told you. The press is asking you to trust them, but given the last two years of them being an active part or "the resistance" and being proved wrong repeatedly, why do they even bother writing these stores? Are there really people that gullible or is their hate so strong that they are seeking any confirmation that feeds their hate? What do you think and do when you see these unnamed sources stories? Accept them as truth or fiction or something in between?

The sad thing, it took three reporters from NBC to write this tiny speculative yarn.

Proof right there. I knew a cat had to be involved.