Unnamed sources are certainly valuable and necessary. But isn’t this term abused by some reporters to justify their viewpoint? And do they always even exist?
I’m willing to engage with bleak news but not necessarily bleak prognostications.
Great subject for more discussions.
Unnamed sources are certainly valuable and necessary. But isn’t this term abused by some reporters to justify their viewpoint? And do they always even exist?
I’m willing to engage with bleak news but not necessarily bleak prognostications.
The longer I work in this business, the more reluctant I am to use an unnamed source.
There are circumstances where it is necessary. For instance: reporting from China. Or an expose on various abuses.
But it should never be used as cover for personal criticism or axe-grinding. I would put in several links here, but I can't find them at the moment and you know what I am talking about.
Unnamed sources are certainly valuable and necessary. But isn’t this term abused by some reporters to justify their viewpoint? And do they always even exist?
I’m willing to engage with bleak news but not necessarily bleak prognostications.
Great subject for more discussions.
Phil, yes:
The longer I work in this business, the more reluctant I am to use an unnamed source.
There are circumstances where it is necessary. For instance: reporting from China. Or an expose on various abuses.
But it should never be used as cover for personal criticism or axe-grinding. I would put in several links here, but I can't find them at the moment and you know what I am talking about.