The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on May 23, 2017, 02:42:14 PM
-
MineralMan (94,182 posts)
Sources - They Come in Many Varieties
Here are some of the kinds of sources journalistic people and those who want to be considered as journalists use when they want to write a story:
1. Actually Named Sources - These are the rarest and most trustworthy sources. They get quoted in the story and are willing to identify themselves publicly. This type of source rarely is willing to talk to minor newsbloggers, though. They talk to journalists everyone recognizes. They're worth listening to, in many cases, especially if they are closely connected to the subject they're talking about. In other cases, they may be only "Expert sources," as described below.
2. Sources Close to Something - These sources are very, very popular with everyone. what "close to" means, however, varies widely. Sometimes, it's a real person who is actually involved in a situation. Often, though, such sources are only "close to" something in terms of physical location, and don't really know anything.
3. Sources Associated with Something - Similar to "close to something" sources, these sources could be anyone who has any relationship with the subject. For example, a "Source associated with the CIA" could be a janitor in the building or even a UPS driver who regularly stops there. These sources are popular with newsbloggers. They might even actually exist, but don't really know anything important, even if they do.
3. Expert Sources - These sources are generally someone who used to be associated with or work for some organization. They have retired, been fired, or are otherwise no longer privy to current information. Often, they talk to others who are also no longer associated with something, and speak authoritatively, if incorrectly. These sources are sometimes named, but often insist on anonymity.
4. Unnamed Sources - These sources are the most popular of all. They have no names, and that's very useful. Sometimes, they "insist on remaining anonymous" or "decline to identify themselves." Sometimes they're real sources. Sometimes they're made up out of whole cloth by the person "quoting" them. How can you tell the difference? You can't. Many grains of salt are needed here.
5. Multiple Sources - These are also unnamed sources, but if you can mention more than one, you can pretend that your information is corroborated. It's not, but that doesn't matter. If you say you have "multiple sources," more naive people will be taken in by your misinformation.
6. Anonymous Sources - When a journalist or other writer actually uses this wording, it means that there is no source other than the voice in their own head. These are the weakest, most unreliable sources of all. Only inexperienced newsbloggers actually use this phrasing. They'll soon learn to use different types of sources, like the ones described above.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029105947
Are Pittstain and truthout sources too? :whatever:
-
:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:
If MM ever gave hid fellow DU-folk credit for having as much intelligence as he does, :-) , and came to whatever point he might have, they might even listen to him.
:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:
-
No matter the particular "variety" of sources, if one says whatever the primitives wish to hear, then it's a legitimate source.
-
No matter the particular "variety" of sources, if one says whatever the primitives wish to hear, then it's a legitimate source.
And the converse is also true. If DU-folk and like-minded Progs don't want to hear a truth, the source is Reich-Wing and therefore dismissed.
-
It appears that one of Rock Head's sources is his own rectum. :whistling:
-
Sorry DUmbass there is only one flavor of "sources" in the democrat-FNM complex's attempted coup of PDT and that is ANONYMOUS. The only kind that talk inside the heads of "journalists" heads that tell such wonderful and unbelievable lies.
-
He forgot the most important, trusted source of all. The undisputed "ORACLE BONG" :stoner: :stoner: :stoner:
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
He forgot the most important, trusted source of all. The undisputed "ORACLE BONG" :stoner: :stoner: :stoner:
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Meh, I suspect the DUmmies rely on the Magic 8 Ball shaken multiple times until desired result is displayed. :bs:
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk2t2hIATCU[/youtube]
-
MineralMan (94,182 posts)
Sources - They Come in Many Varieties
<blah blah blah>
Back long ago when there were true journalists, editors and publishers, unnamed sources meant they were vetted by the news organization that for whatever reason were left unnamed.
Those days are long gone. Personally I think the "unnamed sources" are really made up by the washpo, AP, NYT, etc because they have an agenda and that agenda is in danger from President Trump. In short they are riding on the coat tails of a reputation, earned by honest journalism that quite frankly no longer applies. Their agenda has been exposed, their reputation is in tatters, and they are striking out in anger at President Trump to show the masses that they are still relevant.
That and the fact that President Trump doesn't let them slide with their so called reporting. This really pisses them off. How dare a GOP president fight them on their own terms and beat them!!!!
Add in their missed call of the last election and the result is what you are seeing in the MSM.
Deep down you know I speak the truth dummie... the problem is you just cannot accept it.
Sucks to be you!
-
And then you have the rock head George ...
0. Because I said so.
-
7. The magic 8-ball that is most commonly consulted at the NYT and WaPo.