Sorry I haven't responded sooner ... I was away for a few days with no wifi available.Mothman wrote:[Of course, if someone is just being quoted with an opinion on a situation, there's nothing to confirm beyond their identity (and perhaps whether or not they actually said what is being attributed to them) so do you know how that works? Maybe the identity of the person being quoted needs to be confirmed to an editor or something?
These days, some of the info we get about this stuff isn't from genuine news organizations so it all has to be taken with a reasonable dose of skepticism. I think that's healthy anyway...
Quoting someone with their opinion of what happens should be contextual. As in, the reporter would layout what has transpired and then quote that person. Depending on who that person is (deemed a reliable source) they may use him as an unnamed source. Someone close to the situation may not want to use their name because in fear of retribution ... That's normally the only way a source is granted that protection. For a sports report, it's common that the editor would know the source.
Of course, sports isnt in the realm of "national security" so I know many cases where something wasn't printed because the source didn't want their name in the paper.
It's gets really shady with "analysts" and such going off and writing whatever they want because it's "just their opinion" and bloggers who have no idea what standards serious news stories should be held to. It's like the tail wagging the dog now more than ever.
But, even without the bloggers and the citizen journalists out there, I remain skeptical until something actually happens. I completely agree with you --- it is healthy.