Why is it ok to publish a news article without sources? ?
The New York Times published a report claiming the Russians offered bounties on American soldiers. But no proof. Their source is "an official", no names given. So any journalist can print any story, and simply say they can't reveal the source. That's very dangerous for the world. A newspaper can create conflict between nations.
Even if they can't print the name of the informant, shouldn't security agencies bring in the reporters for interrogation? Afterall, if there are leaks to reporters, then our national security is compromised. We should find the leak. The reporters are Charles Savage, Eric Schmitt and Michael Schwirtz.
Most of the answerers want to make this a political issue. When I question the press, immediately I am assumed to be a Trump supporter. I am not. I am asking about journalism. If the press is not scrutinized, then whoever purchases say, the New York Times is the most powerful person in America. Think beyond cons vs lib, please.
- JeancommunicatesLv 73 weeks ago
The New York Times is dangerous. Lying and deceiving are never good traits. The owner of the New Media can dictate anything he wants and when he prints a lie, the owner becomes the liar. God hates liars. Scripture tells us this, but atheists don't believe in God.
- 1 month ago
HEY Sure why not,, THE TIMES and the DEMOCRITS do it and say it all the time for their fake news... so go ahead..
- ElizabethLv 71 month ago
The problem is that we want journalists who can investigate and tell us what's going on behind the scenes, but if sources are named by those journalists then they're unlikely to come forward for fear of losing their job or even their lives. So the compromise we've agreed on for generations is that we will put our trust in journalists to do their job responsibly in exchange for this information.
Good journalists will have a good record of doing this ... they will have written articles in which they used their sources to break a story that subsequently, evidentially, was correct. If journalists make statements based on poor or made up sources, they'll be found out.
This is why, irrespective of your political views on x newspaper or y TV station, we still need old fashioned media with permanent staff who can be fired rather than general online media with feeds and 'contributors' who freelance.
- 1 month ago
Because media is a weapon of mass destruction. They can use it against you.
But you can't spread fake news that it is not in line with the official narrative.
Those idealistic times,when journalism was about telling the truth, are long gone.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Jas BLv 71 month ago
Because it is written into the Constitution that the press are free.
Tell me were you OK when Donald Trump spent years claiming Obama was not born in the USA, all without a shred of evidence to back it up were you OK with this.
What about when this president claimed that there were millions of illegal voters in the 2016 election, yet after almost four years and after his own investigation headed by the VP, failed to find any evidence of any "massive voter fraud" Were you OK with this?
What about when Fox News claimed the pandemic was a liberal hoax, were you OK with that.
What about when Fox News claimed that Obamacare would result in "death panels" where you disturbed by this lie?
Fox News makes totally unsubstantiated claims almost daily, I could list hundreds of them, where does your outrage stop, when the claims play into your own opinions?
As it happens these reports on Russia have been appearing in Security briefings to the president for over a year and if you think claims which have no evidence to back them up ever make it into these documents then you are delusional and ignorant of how the military work.
The more important question is why has the president ignored them?
- Mr ScepticLv 51 month ago
So you want the state security agencies to “bring in the reporters for interrogation?”
And you want a free press, not subject to government interference?
Can you see why those two don’t go together?
- Anonymous1 month ago
It isn't. But then newspapers are not scholarly works - they are a commercial enterprise for the purpose of making money for shareholders and furthering the political bias of their owners. As Hearst once said: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war" - the kind of recklessness satirised by Welles in Citizen Kane.
- PearlLv 71 month ago
it might not be okay to do that
- Anonymous1 month ago
It's not OK, which is why The New York Times doesn't. In your example, you yourself say that the New York Times had a source. An unnamed source isn't "without sources." You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The New York Times doesn't let any journalist print any story by that journalist simply saying they can't reveal the source because The New York Times requires that journalists' sources be independently vetted by its editors and also requires that claims unnamed sources make be corroborated by other evidence. These are journalistic standards that reputable news publications, like The New York Times, adhere to. They, of course, aren't legally enforced because the First Amendment precludes that.
Disreputable news outlets, like Fox News, don't adhere to those standards, which is why they have no integrity and so no credibility. They've been caught out on lie after lie after lie after lie.