|
Fact vs. Allegatoin
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Ouch. "Semireasonable position and descend into Bull Shit."
My point was that when you refer to something that comes from an anoymous source you could at least say it was alleged instead of referring to it as fact. Cites are for demonstrating that there is a legitimate source that shows the information cited is factually true, not just showing that someone else has the same unstabstantiated opinion (like Ann Coulter loves to do).
I think Tys point was (and correct me if I am wrong) is that considering the structure and posture of our government most of our reliable information concerning our government has to come from anonymous sources, and as long as the information comes from a reputable journalist, information from anonymous sources (especially information that also has been reported by multiple legitimate journalists) can be assumed to be accurate (unless shown otherwise), and furthermore, such sources can be used in a cite to show the validity of the facts asserted.
Were we really descending into Bull Shit? Isn't that a legitimate dispute?
|
I think the reputation of the reporter and the context matter much more than whether a source is named. The bigger problem with anonymous sources is that they are used by the ruling party to float things without consequence.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
