Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
How would Watergate have played out under your system, as set forth here?
|
No different. Did I ever say that anonymous sources shouldn’t be used (in fact I said quite the opposite). I just said that when the source is from an anonymous source it should be identified.
During Watergate the editor required that all statements had two unrelated verifiable sources that were reviewed by the editor. No one goes by those rules anymore.
I am not saying that anonymous sources should not be used, I am just saying that any statements made by them should be referred to as allegations made by anonymous sources and not as facts.
The problem is that reporters don’t point out which facts in their articles came from where (any more). They just throw out a bunch of statements some of which are verifiable and others that are not. Every year since Watergate it gets crazier and crazier.
This doesn't just happen to Bush, it happened to the Clinton administration all the time. Every one talked like they new what was exactly going on in the Clinton administration when half the time they were using dubious sources that were wrong. And the Clinton administration was much easier to get information on than the Bush administration.
Did you ever read the Agenda by Bob Woodward (Bob Woodward’s expose on the Clinton administration)? Most of it was a work of fiction. Half the stuff in it was erroneous but after it was published everyone talked like everything in it was a fact.
He had tons of conversation (which he does in all his books) of just two people talking to each other, both of whom never talked to him. In other words, someone told someone about a conversation he or she had, the person that he or she talked to about the conversation, then relayed it to Woodward (or even that person related it to someone else, who related it to Woodward) and then Woodward then turns it into direct dialogue. Makes it sound like he was in the room with a steno pad or tape recorder. And of course the person he got the information from remains anonymous.
The press gave up a long time ago trying to be serious about facts, but that doesn't mean we should follow along blindly.
.
