1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Unnamed sources can spread a rumor like wildfire

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by EStreetJoe, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member


  2. SockPuppet

    SockPuppet Active Member

    Yeah, fine, but what about ...
    Health care.
    The war.
    Social Security.
    The environment.
    Gas prices.

    All that obsessing over that crap and not nearly enough reporting about the issues.

    What do you have when 100 journalists are up to their necks in sand? Not enough sand.
  3. SixToe

    SixToe Active Member

    I hate the phrase "unnamed source."

    Every source has a name.

    "source requesting anonymity" would be better.

    Carry on.
  4. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Why don't we call unnamed sources what they are, people that don't want their name associated with what they are saying.
    It's such a nifty trick that unnamed sources are perceived as being "more" credible than someone who is actually willing to put their name out there.
  5. Magic In The Night

    Magic In The Night Active Member

    Sounds like half the staffers at the Rocky Mountain News staff are serious Springsteen fans! Can't really fault them for wishful thinking but they should have labeled it like that instead of all the breathless, anonymously sourced stories.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page