The media and anonymous sources

Post Reply New Topic

Is it just me, or has the media gone a little overboard with using anonymous sources as quotations for their articles? I like to read magazines like Time, US News, and Newsweek, but it seems that a lot of the points in their their stories rely on these "anonymous" sources, as do a lot of newspaper articles nowadays. "A source that didn´t want to be named because of the sensitve info he was discussing", "A man who is familiar with the situation", "A person not allowed to discuss sensitve information discusses it anonymously", etc. I mean, I know its important to have these anonymous sources, and protect them, but haven´t they gone a little overboard with relying on them? It seems as though people just take it for granted nowdays and accept it as as a part of reporting when it has taken on a bigger role than it should. Or is this the way it should work? I don´t know, any thoughts?

There've always been anonymous sources, but the press hasn't been truly free since the Watergate scandle. Since then, government has been making control of the media one of its top priorities. Sometimes these "anonymous" sources may very well be representatives of the government, even if some of them are slightly critical of the government so as to give the illusion of a free press.

They're comming to take me away ho hay!!
They're comming to take me away!!

Heh, naw, I'm not THAT paranoid...there's a limit. I don't think that this is a police state, just a dictatorship posing as a democracy in order to avoid violent revolution. I doubt that the government knows, or cares, about my existence, or what I believe--as far as they're concerned anyone like me is gonna be labled a cook by the masses, because the masses rarely accept ideas that conflict with their perception of the world, unless their perception of the world changes due to events that seriously effect them (most commonly a lack of food, for example). Most Americans grow up being told that we live in a democracy with a free press, so even though we show all the signs of a dictatorship with government control of the media, do you think most are going to accept that idea just because a few "unpatriotic nutjobs" think so? No--your response is an example of this. Hence, I'd be surprised if the government was at all intent on with "taking me away"--at least not unless I go completely nuts and decide to blow up the white house. But as I am a pacifist, chances are I wouldn't do something like that.

There are thousands of regulations that must be in place for people to be on camera.
Besides, since media often make people look bad in news, it makes sense that many would want to be anonymous.
Finally, it takes alot of courage to stand up in front of lots of people only to be jeared at.

I find this weird idea that all news is good news, same idea as sticks and stones.

The American media is nuts. I watch CNN sometimes and it is incredible the amount of blatant manipulation that goes on. They *constantly* use words like 'terrorist' and 'regime' and so on to descibe stuff that they want their vievers to form a particular meaning about. It's really sickening to watch...., right now they're on about North Korea and their "illegal nuclear program"....ehh??? what? illegal? under whose law I might ask???? Did they forget that North Korea is a soverign state?
Journalistic ethics have gone completely out the window.

It's also interresting how the washington-regime and their terrorist leader keeps going on about how 'free' they are, when someone keeps repeating it like that it makes it quite obvious that they are the *exact opposite*. Unfortunately most people are too stupid or have a too short attentionspan to appreciate that (and the media is doing their best, and succeeding, to keep them that way with CNN and sitcoms)

Non Proliferation Treaty by UN charter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_No ... ion_Treaty

Yes! I´ve noticed that too. Notice how we have the "deadliest attack yet" every day in Iraq? The deadliest attack since this, the deadliest attack since that, the deadliest attack since yesterday, the deadliest attack since this afternoon, the deadliest attack since two minutes ago, etc., etc. I´m not saying that its not horrible, but the media likes to sensationalize it way beyond whats necessary. After all, the purpose of a news corporation is to make money, not bring home the news.

note that the article cited mentions north korea's withdawal from the treaty in the first paragraph.

But I would!! and the government has'nt taken me away. AGAIN that's not the sign of a dictatorship

Simple. They tell their people that they live in a democracy even as the government acts like a dictatrorship. While it doesn't have all of the signs, it still has some: aggressive, militaristic foreign policy; rigged elections; elections between two parties that are basically the same; government control of the media (no, the mainstream press is not free--this is something that's been well documented already); minimal separation of church and state (the government's stance on abortion and gay rights, not to mention their "GOD bless America" mantra, is indicative of this); minimal separation of powers (the supreme court's extremely tilted to the right at this point--pretty much just a bunch of rubber stamps); etc.

And yet despite this, the government keep calling itself a democracy, and the mainstream media, and with it a majority of the people, continue to call the country a democracy. Those that don't call it a republic, which is closer to what America seems to be aiming for, but still inaccurate.



Not usually, but I do make exceptions. For example, I really hate guns, and wasn't really in the most support of the second amendment, but there was a thread about gun laws earlier in this board. Some people said a few things that changed my perception on gun laws quite a bit. If somebody gives me an arguement I can't refute and see to be convincing, then I do accept that arguement. I just haven't done so with you because your arguements just don't convince me, and mine don't convince you. I mean, you trust the press. I don't trust the press. I don't see why we keep have to arguing about the same things over and over again, especially when you don't even respond to some of the points I bring up in past arguements--and of course it's always the ones I consider to be better points, too.



I never said that the press can't SOMETIMES report on illegal government activities--the control isn't that complete, but it's still there. Why is it that suspicious questions and details are raised immediately after suspicious events, and then completely ignored after people have had a chance to stop and think? Because the government steps in and tells the news station that they can't bring that suspicious detail up again, or the person responsible will lose their job. Of course the media can report some things, so as to continue this illusion of a free press, but do you honestly think that everything that happens is reported on? Do you honestly think that the American press is immune to government interference? There have been many moments in American history where the truth has been delayed, or the government tried to cover it up. Sometimes it fails, like in the Watergate scandle or the time where they first reported the harmfulness of cigarettes. But instead of looking at those incidents as examples of how the American press is free, why not look at them as times when it was free? Just because the government or corporations fail to cover a story up even though they try it doesn't mean that they fail every time.

Additionally, do you think it's a coincidence that the front page gets covered with news that isn't very important, while articles that are get buried to later pages? Or that, as eipsa already brought up, news stations (and newspapers, too) have such specific word choice? Do you think it's a coincidence that anyone who is fighting for their life and happens to be against someone who America is allied with gets labled a "terrorist," even if they are acting as anyone would in their situation? That the mainstream media doesn't show pictures of Palistinian children being massacred by Israelie forces? That the mainstream media has so many "anonymous sources," many of which are more questionable than the sources of the free speech news? That people who act liberal are called "radical"? That people who act moderate are called "liberal"? That people who act conservative are called "moderate"? That people who act reactionary are called "conservative"? That nobody is ever called "reactionary," unless maybe they're also being called a "terrorist regime"?



Good point, though most dictatorships are quite blatant about what they are, and therefore have something to fear in the people. But in America, the public isn't violently oppressed--just constantly lied to and manipulated and exploited, often without realizing it. And if the public doesn't think that their rights aren't being oppressed, then the public isn't going to try going for a violent overthrow of the government. No need to take away the gun laws.



While we're supposed to have this right, a lot of protests get broken up by cops--yes, even the ones that don't get violent or extreme at all. People just march, waving signs, and cops come in and start spraying tear gas. I've seen it happen myself.



You can call them paranoid delusions but I think it's delusional to think that the news ISN'T under some government control.



Good point, but I doubt the government's primary concern is whether or not anybody can sue them. Plus, has anyone in recent years actually successfully sued the government? I'm talking about in the 2000's, not beforehand.



At least I don't insult people just because I disagree with them.



Again, the point here is that they don't want to appear like one but still get away with as much as possible. Do you honestly think that they'll be able to keep it under wraps if anyone who speaks seditiously disappears? No, because then it would be OBVIOUS that the government was becoming too powerful and corrupt, and the next thing you know the people who used to support them start to turn against them out of fear. And then there's simply too many people to take away. The government is primarily interested in keeping its populace ignorant of their control.

Also, there's a difference between a dictatorship and a reactionary totalitarian society. While the latter definately oppresses its people, not all dictatorships do. Cuba, for instance, is a dictatorship, and while it's not good to be gay there its people have some of the best domestic features in the west--the health care's great, the education's great, etc. The education in America definately needs improvement, and the health care? HAH!

An anonymous source given after the event has already taken place, 9/10 will be made up.

Similar to the FIX-news interview tactic of asking 'some people might say...' <insert something they want to say to push a thinly veiled agenda in an indirect manner>

I don´t think that this is government interference. While it sometimes may be, I think its more related to the media´s need to make money first, and report the news second. After all, why would they call terrorists "masterminds"? That one kinda irratates me, it doesn´t take a genius to kill innocent people!! !! These word choices are used to sensationlize things to make them more sellable and exciting. Remember how there was that whole debate about calling people homocide/suicide bombers? If it was government control, then all people would have been called homocide bombers, but they weren´t some stations refused to do so. Also, I don´t think that not showing Palistinians being killed is government manipulation, its more related to what can sell again. Most people in America are sympathetic to Israel, and a front page article with a Palestinian massacre would not sell newspapers. While there may be some things that are influenced by government, I think these type of things are more related to the medias need to sensationlize things to bring in more money. After all, an outlet that only reports the news but does not make money, will not be reporting the news for long. I think the paragraph above this one was a better argument for government interference, I don´t think this one really applies.

Yeah, good point. However, I think that "suicide bombers" has as much of a negative connotation as "homocide bombers," because suicide is very much looked down upon, especially in Christianity-related circles, given the "Suicide = BAD!" clause in the Bible--and our government's kind of a bible thumpin' regime.

Interesting point, I never thought about it like that.

Funny, the Saprtans considered this one of the problems with democracies. The agressive militarisim of the Atheneans sparked the Peloponesian war. Your perception of reality is opposite reality in this case.

I've asked you to provide proof of this and all you gave me was insinuations and innuendo. You did'nt document or prove anything.

And yet abortion is still legal, yet another sign that this is'nt a dictatorship.

Evidently you missed the Supreme Court's decision restricting the power of the executive branch by striking down the Military Tribunals the Bush administration wanted.


You might be able to make mthe argument that America is an Ologarchy pretending to be a Republic (I happen to believe that) but you are'nt making that argument.




That's due to the logic you use. Your logic is, If it DOES'NT walk like a duck and it DOES'NT talk like a duck, then this is just a clever deception by the duck because it does'nt want to get shot. It's impossible to crack that kind of "construct based reasoning"

I never said I trusted the press. I'm always skeptical. You on the other hand are simply nhilistic towards the press.

Many of you point's were simply "Red Herring's". Which is why I did'nt respond to them. They were'nt good points at all.




There's a world of difference between the government INFLUENCING the press , and the government CONTROLLING the press. If the government controlled the press, they're doing a piss poor job!!

Again, you're talking about influence here, not controll. Two different things.


You have'nt been watching the news for very long apperently, back in the days of the "Big 3" networks, the terms "reactionary" and "ultra-conservative" were used on a daily basis. The success of Fox News taught the more liberal news agencies that they would loose viewers by talking like that.




Then why do Democratic administrations try to take away gun rights?? Liberals are just as guilty as conservatives in wanting to monopolize power.




So you're saying all the protests I see on T.V. were staged by the government??




Influence yes, control no.




I''l look this up on the net. Do you want to make a wager I'll find several examples??




I was making a joke you dolt!!




I'll tell you a little secret about myself. I'm the world's greatest slugger. I can hit a homerun 100% of the time, provided that no-one watches me. I can provide evidence!! I'll let you stand outside the stadium, you'll hear the crack of the bat, and you'll see the ball fly over the wall. I don't want anyone to watch me because they would become jellous and kill me. Only by trying to appear like an average batter can I get away with being so good.You see I can use your logic too!! !


So do us all a favor and move to Cuba!! !!