A Reader's Guide to Unnamed Sources (Rock Head)

[AzJames73]

MineralMan (94,497 posts)          https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029144155

A Reader's Guide to Unnamed Sources
it can be difficult to interpret some news stories when they quote sources, but don't identify them. In some cases, as with newspapers like the Washington Post or New York Times, you can depend on those sources to actually exist and have useful information, in most cases. Those news outlets know who the sources are, but are simply not revealing their names to protect them from retribution. In other cases, however, unnamed sources may not be what they might seem to be at a glance. Here's a guide to help you understand all of the various types of sources sometimes used by lesser news outlets and random news blogs:

1. Sources "close to" something - This may refer to someone who is, or has been, located near a place where news is made, but does not necessarily mean that the sources actually know anything about what goes on in there. Driving past the NSA building daily on one's commute qualifies, for example.

2. Sources "inside" something - Such sources may actually have valid information, but may also be someone who works in a building, but has no actual direct access to information. This is a popular class of sources, which may include janitors, receptionists and others, who may have no information of use at all..

3. Sources with "links to" something - This is a meaningless description, and may only refer to some other blogger who included a link to something's website in their writings. It may be accurate, but does not necessarily mean truthful. There are links everywhere.

4. Sources "highly placed" in something - This sounds important, for sure. However, it could also refer to an HVAC contractor who worked on equipment on something's roof.

5. A "contract employee" at something - As with the previous types of sources, cafeteria staff and janitorial staff qualify for this status.

6. A "former insider" at something - "Former" means that the source is no longer involved with something, but used to be. It really tells you nothing, since there is no time frame or reference to the qualifications of the source to comment on anything.

There are many other similar descriptions. If examined closely, they can mean almost anything, but do not necessarily indicate that such "sources" actually have information worth reporting. In fact, they are such nebulous descriptions that they may indicate that there is no real source at all for what follows in an article or blog. All such descriptions should be taken with a grain of salt, or perhaps an entire salt block, like those used on farms for the critters to lick.

tableturner (453 posts)
1. Do you think we are all idiots? We get it.

MineralMan (94,497 posts)
2. No, of course I don't.

I don't even know any other DUers in real life. I don't form such judgments about people I have never met. Thanks for asking

Except for anyone conservative.

[Carl]

I am convinced George is an idiot.

[Old n Grumpy]

tableturner (453 posts)
1. Do you think we are all idiots? We get it.

Actually, YES, plus you are evil, hateful, despicable, and sore losers. 

PS I forgot stupid, ugly and smelly.