Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
No I meant exactly what I said: Do you have any cites that are not from reporters that claimed to get their information from allegations made by "anonymous sources"?
Clearly you do not have any. As a lawyer, I can't believe you refer to information gleaned from double hearsay from an unknown source as "fact". Allegations made from anonymous sources, are not facts, just allegations. They are not verifiable and there is just as much incentive for these reporters to lie (or for their sources to lie) as there is for the government to lie. For the reporters the more shocking the story the more it sells and the more ancillary press it gets. Therefore the reporter has a strong incentive to exaggerate or to shade things to be more sensationalistic. And the temptation is doubly strong because no one can check on their statements because no one has access to their sources. And often these anonymous sources have axes to grind or have agendas other than the truth. And what provides a better place to spread disinformation than a place where no one can ascertain who is spreading it. So more often than not information from anonymous sources is not reliable.
I am not saying that there is not a place for anonymous stories. They serve an important purpose. But it is important to always keep in mind that any information produced by a reporter from an "anonymous source" is highly suspect. To refer to it as "fact" is either naive or disingenuous.
|
Your putative epistemology, if not calculated for the purposes, conveniently allows you to dismiss all sorts of inconvenient facts. How nice.
Certain sorts of things will only be reported through anonymous sources. Categorically disregarding such reporting is tantamount to closing your eyes, ears, and nose to the world, and feeling your way around blindly.
