Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Go John! At 11:07 AM 1/20/00 +0000, you wrote: >on 19/1/00 11:05 pm, Marc James Small at msmall@roanoke.infi.net wrote: > > > A completely inapt comparison. Innuendo, insult, slander, and slur are the > > norm of politics, and Woodward and Bernstein were political writers. You > > are not so. To the contrary, you are a journalist in a highly technical > > craft. As such, your sources become vital to your credibility. > >I have sat out this exchange, but screw it. This is so much balls. I speak >as a long term investigative journalist. Check out my credits on the IMDB if >you doubt it. Anonymous sources are a necessary part of *all* journalism >where people depend for their livelihoods on organisations they wish to >criticise. The idea that all sources should be public plays into the hands >of those who have the power to threaten, whether explicitly or by >implication. > >Just because we are talking corporations rather than politics changes this >not a whit. Anyone who has ever come up against a corporation in this >context knows how intense the pressure they can apply is. The fact that it's >economic pressure rather than physical or politcal is irrelevant, and in >fact for people whose livelihood is at stake economic pressure, *even if it >is merely perceived rather than threatened*, is a very powerful force. > >Just because sources are anonymous does not mean they should be discounted. >However, you need to take into account the credibility and integrity of the >people who report what they say. Thus, an anonymous source quoted by a >supermarket tabloid has a different impact than one quoted by the Washington >Post. Journalists who wish to preserve their reputations are *extremely* >careful about anonymous sources, precisely because if the information they >provide proves to be duff, the journalist's reputation suffers. > >In my opinion criticising a reputable journalist of proven reliability for >quoting anonymous sources is, frankly, naive and obfuscatory. > >Over and out. > > >-- >John Brownlow > >recent photos: www.pinkheadedbug.com > more photos: www.cinematic.freeserve.co.uk > music: www.jukebox.demon.co.uk >