"Anonymous sources" =/= "Fake news"

Sadly, it has become apparent that many American citizens never received a proper education in Journalism. Trained, legitimate Journalists, as opposed to tabloid gossip mongers, online "grass root" reporters, and bloggers, are required to investigate the stories they report and evaluate the truthfulness and reliability of their sources when reporting second hand. Unless they witness an event themselves, they generally require two or three sources that independently confirm the story. If they fabricate a story and it is discovered, they will be fired by their editors or no longer have their stories purchased if they are a free-lancer.*

There are a number of reasons why a reporter might wish to keep the identity of their sources anonymous. Usually, it is because their source could stand to lose their employment-- or even life-- if they were discovered "leaking" the story. Journalists are able to judge the reliability of sources based upon the source's position and previous track record. The use of an anonymous source does not mean that the source does not exist, it means that the source is reliable but unwilling to place themselves in jeopardy.

There are some very precise terms that journalists use to describe the terms that a source has shared information on. Here they are, courtesy of WikiPedia:

There are several categories of "speaking terms" (agreements concerning attribution) that cover information conveyed in conversations with journalists. In the UK the following conventions are generally accepted:

"On the record": all that is said can be quoted and attributed.
"Unattributable": what is said can be reported but not attributed.
"Off the record": the information is provided to inform a decision or provide a confidential explanation, not for publication.

However, confusion over the precise meaning of "unattributable" and "off-the-record" has led to more detailed formulations:

Designation

Description

"Chatham House Rule"

Named after Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs), which introduced the rule in 1927: "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

"Lobby terms":

In the UK accredited journalists are allowed in to the otherwise restricted Members' Lobby on the basis that information received there is never attributed and events there are not reported. "Lobby terms" are agreed to extend this arrangement to cover discussions that take place elsewhere.

"Not for attribution"

The comments may be quoted directly, but the source may only be identified in general terms (e.g., "a government insider"). In practice such general descriptions may be agreed with the interviewee.

"On background"

The thrust of the briefing may be reported (and the source characterized in general terms as above) but direct quotes may not be used.

"Deep background"
[align=center]A term that is used in the United States, though not consistently. Most journalists would understand "deep background" to mean that the information may not be included in the article but is used by the journalist to enhance his or her view of the subject matter, or to act as a guide to other leads or sources. Most deep background information is confirmed elsewhere before being reported. Alternative meanings exist; for instance, a White House spokesman said, "Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can't be quoted."Deep background can also mean the information received can be used in the story, but cannot be attributed to any source. Depending on the publication, information on deep background is sometimes attributed in terms such as "[Publication name] has learned" or "It is understood by [publication name]."[/align]

It is important to understand that media rely on their reputation in order to make money. Although they fulfill an important public role in a democratic society, they are ultimately for profit organizations. If they undermine their own credibility, they will lose market share, and, ultimately, go out of business. There is therefore no reason to create blatant fictions for political reasons in a free market, liberal democracy. It is only in a repressive society, where the State controls the media, that blatantly false propaganda can be sustained.

This lack of understanding of how journalism works in a free society is being exploited by forces inimical to liberal democracy, both here and abroad. Media outlets, both overtly and covertly run by foreign governments, flood the internet with contradictory reports to confuse the public. The goal is not to convince people that a particular "narrative" is "true," but rather to create so much confusion that the populace throws up their hands in despair and concludes "we may never know the truth."

Liberal democracy, of which our federated republic is one, relies on a well informed, educated electorate capable of understanding the issues facing the nation. It assumes that we are able to discern fact from fiction, using critical thinking and common sense. Don't allow yourself to be misled. It is possible to know the facts if you know how to understand what you see, hear, and read. It is, in fact, your duty as a citizen. Do not despair, educate yourself and deny ignorance!

*Disclosure: I am a free-lance journalist in my spare time. This is probably not a surprise to ATS members.

It does surprise me that you are a freelance journalist. Are you degreed? Have you worked for the MSM?

What most here know, that you don't, is that Journalism has been sold out by big corps, intelligence community propaganda, money, and mouthpieces who prostitute and corrupt it.

a reply to: DJW001

One source for a Hillary or Obama story, two sources for Trump. Got it.

a reply to: The GUT

I have covered both the arts and sciences in both local and national publications. (I am not comfortable revealing more than that.) I know people who are both print and television reporters, and it pains me to see them abused more than they deserve.

a reply to: DJW001

The problem with msm is they make all these accusations and alot of the time you never ever see any kind of evidence whatsoever of the accusations.

Im still waiting for the trump dossier that was splashed all over the tv for a while.

Thats just one example. Its a common occurance.

Just telling stories with no evidence

a reply to: The GUT

What most here know, that you don't, is that Journalism has been sold out by big corps intelligence community propaganda, money, and mouthpieces who prostitute and corrupt it.

Correction: what the real "enemies of the people" want you to believe is that "Journalism has been sold out by big corps intelligence community propaganda, money, and mouthpieces who prostitute and corrupt it." Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Stop spreading doubt and teach the people how to read the news correctly.

a reply to: Idreamofme

The problem with msm is they make all these accusations and alot of the time you never ever see any kind of evidence whatsoever of the accusations.

Don't worry; if the accusations are true the evidence will be presented in court or at a hearing. Remember Watergate? Bernstein and Woodward reported based on an anonymous source, who turned out to be truthful. Nixon himself provided the evidence in the form of secretly recorded tapes... of the sort Trump has hinted he has.

Im still waiting for the trump dossier that was splashed all over the tv for a while.

You can view the actual document here. It is real, and we know where it came from. The issue is whether the sources can be trusted. A PI looking for dirt will have lower standards than a typical journalist.

a reply to: DJW001

I've been saying this since the whole fake news movement began.

Accreditation.

They don't have to reveal sources but those sources have to exist.

a reply to: Sillyolme

They don't have to reveal sources but those sources have to exist.

Contrast this with the countless stories we saw during the election quoted from publications that do not actually exist! That is where the expression "fake news" comes from.

originally posted by: DJW001

Correction: what the real "enemies of the people" want you to believe is that "Journalism has been sold out by big corps intelligence community propaganda, money, and mouthpieces who prostitute and corrupt it." Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Stop spreading doubt and teach the people how to read the news correctly.

Enemies of the people...Like the sold out liars at CNN you mean? Until you address the blatant problems within the sold out press and the sad state of "Journalism," YOU are part of the problem.

Am I spreading doubt...or spreading knowledge and real world experience of who to doubt?

Very Fake News - Now The Scoop!

a reply to: DJW001

Wait, you're supposed to be a 'real' journalist?

You being the most avid supporter of federal government propaganda initiatives / legislature, the truthfulness of the MSM being sold out to corporate & Corporatocracy interests (which you've screamed is to be considered "Freedom of the Press"), and in censorship across ATS against sources that rub you wrong, I'm flabbergasted at this revelation.

The subject? Sure, on TV (in fiction programs) journalists get fired by their editors for dodgey sources. But from what I can tell, in the real world nowadays, the editors are total phonies by default, and they're all in on this game of push the partisansnip / militarism via cooked up stories where "anonymous sources" are the go to turnkeys.

a reply to: DJW001

Some journalists are fools, they are emotional, illogical, bitter and nasty - they may be on TV or radio, but they have no integrity and are a laughable source of (hyper-bias) information.

The use of an anonymous source does not mean that the source does not exist, it means that the source is reliable but unwilling to place themselves in jeopardy.

Anonymous sources can also be non-existent and used as propaganda to push an agenda at a convenient time.

A government official as well as IC analyst who both wish to remain anonymous stated to me, off the record, that Hillary Clinton personally ordered the hit on Seth Rich - and the DOJ and FBI has the evidence to prove it, which will be presented to the public after Trump returns from overseas.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DJW001

Wait, you're supposed to be a 'real' journalist?

You being the most avid supporter of federal government propaganda initiatives / legislature, the truthfulness of the MSM being sold out to corporate & Corporatocracy interests, and in censorship across ATS against sources that rub you wrong, I'm flabbergasted at this revelation.

The subject? Sure, on TV (in fiction programs) journalists get fired by their editors for dodgey sources. But from what I can tell, in the real world nowadays, the editors are total phonies by default, and they're all in on this game of push the partisansnip via cooked up stories where "anonymous sources" are the go to turnkeys.

Bingo...it's the editorial chief who molds, prepares, and delivers the propagandized news gruel. They don't get that position by being bearers of truth and journalistic integrity. Real journos get sidelined and/or damaging stories killed. The journalists who accept the control are the ones you see in headlines or on set.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Thank you.

Lets also underscore how the Pentagon (for one) has their propagandists embedded directly into every juncture of the primary corporate MSM apparatus (YES, that also includes all the "Liberal Media" supposedly anti-war'ish spots), pumping their war machine racket out. This has been the norm since at least 9/11, long before Obama signed those propaganda bill's in December (which our "freelance journalist" here argued in favor for pages upon pages across half the threads here that ever touched the subject).

See here:
Domestic Propaganda and the News Media - HISTORY COMMONS

a reply to: The GUT

Real journalists are on the front lines getting shot at

a reply to: DJW001

Look how fast this discussion came to an end.

It doesn't fit the narrative so it gets dismissed.

I didn't know you were a journalist but I realized right off the bat you could frame a thought .

a reply to: Sillyolme

More like if it doesn't fit reality it will get picked apart.

SEE HERE:
Domestic Propaganda and the News Media - HISTORY COMMONS

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: DJW001

Some journalists are fools, they are emotional, illogical, bitter and nasty - they may be on TV or radio, but they have no integrity and are a laughable source of (hyper-bias) information.

The use of an anonymous source does not mean that the source does not exist, it means that the source is reliable but unwilling to place themselves in jeopardy.

Anonymous sources can also be non-existent and used as propaganda to push an agenda at a convenient time.

A government official as well as IC analyst who both wish to remain anonymous stated to me, off the record, that Hillary Clinton personally ordered the hit on Seth Rich - and the DOJ and FBI has the evidence to prove it, which will be presented to the public after Trump returns from overseas.

The issue with the bolded, is you're not an accredited or trusted individual who has made their mark delivering the news. Also, I don't believe anything that is off the record has been shared. Requesting anonymity and responding to a question off the record are 2 completely different things that it seems you're stating above.

So yes, anybody can spout off anything they'd like, but not every organization has credibility.

Also, I think some people are conflating "Fake News" with "Biased News" or even "Incorrect News".

Being biased doesn't make a story fake. Having some facts incorrect doesn't make a story fake.

a reply to: DJW001

That document says Russia has been working on Trump for OVER 5 years.
The existence of the dossier was first reported on January 10, 2017.

From en.wikipedia.org...–Russia_dossier

The "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him."[11]

Steele delivered his report as a series of two- or three-page memos, starting in June 2016 and continuing through December. He continued his investigation even after the client stopped paying for it following Trump's election.[7]

I have a hard time believing that Russia was behind Trump before Obama's second term.
I am not saying that it is not possible, it just seems like a stretch to me.


To be open, this is the first time i have seen this document. I have not read it in it's entirety.
It's 35 pages long, but I am working thru it.

a reply to: DJW001

Sadly, the MSM is guilty of twisting "reports" and details to fit their narrative, and proclaiming certain accusations as FACTS (including in the headlines they use) without backing it up.

You defending this is as a self-proclaimed " real journalist " is pitiful, but not surprising, as many have fallen victim to this rhetoric.

Try again!