In your opinion, are media articles that cite "anonymous sources" as their main source of information largely trustworthy or untrustworthy in most cases?
Depends on the context. Many situations exist where it makes sense that sources want to stay hidden.
Depends if the information could put the supplier in danger. If no, less trustworthy. If yes, then yes. Although if course it depends who is the one who would put them in danger.
Depends on the reporting agency. Is the reporters name attached to the article? Are named sources also used in the article? Does the reporting agency follow an editorial standard? How familiars am I with the reporting agency (is it a reputable source with a long history or is it a partisan rag that just appeared out of nowhere)? Do they also report their attempts to confirm the story! And do they describe who the anonymous source is so that I can judge how plausible the source is? For instance, an anonymous source on the White House janitorial staff reporting on high level policy discussions from inside the Oval is not credible.
In short, you have to use your critical thinking skills to assess anonymous - and named - source reporting!
Depends. It worked for Bernstein and Woodward- check out All the President's Men.
The fact that the media admits they are anonymous sources means they are to be taken with a grain of salt until more supporting evidence comes forward.
It's gone from protecting Deep Throat to quoting the 💩 your lunch buddy made up after a few lunch cocktails while working on a story together to make up nonsense to support your leftist editor boss' agenda so you keep your job.
Took down Nixon, it'll take down trump too
I can understand why conservatives don't like them... they took down Nixon and will take down Trump. Makes sense
😂 Trump is not going to get taken down. That is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.
The same can be said for your statement
Not really. A section of this article explains why impeachment will not happen:
And there is also no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. It's nothing but a conspiracy theory.
This article was written before the shit show of a week trunp has had. Also since when is huffpost a legit source for you? What they are legit when it works for You? Lol. And there is no evidce according to who? Clapper who clarified that not that there isn't any evidence he just hasn't seen any because he's not a part of the investigation? Why was Comey ramping up his investigation? Why have subpoenas been issued? Why was Trump trying to shit down the investigation?
A conspiracy theory the FBI has been investigating for almost a year...
Why after his AG warns him not to hire Flynn is she fired and Flynn kept on.
Huffpost had a left wing bias, which is why it makes it a little shocking that they would run an article like that. When even leftists are admitting that he will likely when a second term, that's when you know you guys are in trouble.
The fact that the FBI is investigating a conspiracy theory is what makes this a waste of taxpayer money.
Trump wasn't trying to shut down the investigation. It is still going on. You are pushing fake news.
And once the special prosecutor assigned to this case exonerates Trump, you and the rest of the left will be embarrassed on national television and social media.
Oh no... Its just what Comey himself has stated... I guess everything is fake news unless it comes from emperor trumps mouth... Also you need to learn the difference between fact and opinion
A special prosecutor will take Years and both sides will have to endure this shit for probably longer than trump will be president. There is more than enough probable cause they need to begin an impeachment investigation if we want to get to the bottom of it as soon as possible
Gotta love leftists. They ridicule sources if you post a Fox News article or a Breitbart article, then ridicule for posting a Huffpost article? No source is good if it doesn't agree with them.
No I have no problem with huffpost, or fox or breibart. I always read them myself to find the bias. I think it's just funny he posted an op-ed piece from huffpost to prove his point when If I had done that he wouldn't have even opened it
Yup. Leftists can't handle the truth when it contradicts their narrative. What Mudkip doesn't understand is that this special prosecutor investigation probably won't take "years" because there is no evidence to back up the conspiracy theory.
I don't understand why with no evidence being brought forward liberals go with whatever the liberal media and leadership cries. If you want to hold Trump's feet to the fire first hold your own as it's getting silly and bewildering of your thought process.
I used to think that it made sense that some people might not want their identity known. But I think (probably naively) media used to be more responsible and check the legitimacy of claims. Now, they've placed being first at a higher level of importance than being right. Using a snippet of a memo read to them over the phone as the basis for an article is downright irresponsible.
You have to protect the person making the comment.
This user is currently being ignored
Untrustworthy. In most cases, anonymous sources are the most unreliable sources of information that can be used in media.
Untrustworthy. Most folks apply the same thinking only to sources like InfoWars and Breitbart (which is fine and logical) but never to mainstream media.