Canadian news
Link Related to Canada in some say What trusted journalism looks like in the age of disinformation, polarization
 
news up
news down
19
Category  Misc CDN
Poster  DrCaleb
Hits  191
Date  2020-09-18 12:08:36

Comments:

  • DrCaleb: In an ideal world, every story we put to air or online would be fully and transparently sourced. People with important information to share would have the courage and safety to be named in our stories and not face repercussions. Naming sources is always our preferred choice.

    But there can be a fine balance between transparency and accountability in a journalist's pursuit of the truth. Information from unnamed sources can be a powerful tool to learn important and potentially controversial facts about a story.

    At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.

    Our ability to protect sources allows people with important information to come forward and expose matters of public interest. If we do not properly protect our confidential sources, potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to expose abuses of power.

    It is common to hear that a source spoke to a particular news organization "on condition of anonymity." Most recently, the Atlantic published an article citing "anonymous sources" who revealed disparaging remarks allegedly made by U.S. President Donald Trump against military veterans. What was lost on some critics of the story is that the unnamed sources were not anonymous to the reporter or his editor.


    For those who think 'anonymous' sources aren't real sources.
  • Freakinoldguy: "DrCaleb" said
    In an ideal world, every story we put to air or online would be fully and transparently sourced. People with important information to share would have the courage and safety to be named in our stories and not face repercussions. Naming sources is always our preferred choice.

    But there can be a fine balance between transparency and accountability in a journalist's pursuit of the truth. Information from unnamed sources can be a powerful tool to learn important and potentially controversial facts about a story.

    At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.

    Our ability to protect sources allows people with important information to come forward and expose matters of public interest. If we do not properly protect our confidential sources, potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to expose abuses of power.

    It is common to hear that a source spoke to a particular news organization "on condition of anonymity." Most recently, the Atlantic published an article citing "anonymous sources" who revealed disparaging remarks allegedly made by U.S. President Donald Trump against military veterans. What was lost on some critics of the story is that the unnamed sources were not anonymous to the reporter or his editor.


    For those who think 'anonymous' sources aren't real sources.


    Of course anonymous source can be real. But that isn't the question. The question is whether the sources claims are truthful and provable. So, the only way for that to happen is if these anonymous sources give their evidence to the proper authorities for action.

    The anonymous accusers don't even have to face the accused anymore so their anonymity can be safeguarded no matter the circumstances.

    Yet, there's still been no proof laid on the table to corroborate these accusations and until that happens it's nothing more than an accusation.

    So until "j'accuse" becomes the acceptable method of ascertaining guilt or innocence instead of the troublesome "burden of proof" one, anonymous sources still have to present their evidence if not their names before they're to be believed.
  • PluggyRug: Then ask yourself why anonymous sources want remain anonymous if speaking the truth.
  • bootlegga: "PluggyRug" said
    Then ask yourself why anonymous sources want remain anonymous if speaking the truth.


    Why? Because of retaliation of course!

    Whether it's doxxing from people online, harassment, or even threats against their economic livelihood, people nowadays have far less protection than they used to, despite so-called 'whistleblower' legislation.
  • DrCaleb: "Freakinoldguy" said
    In an ideal world, every story we put to air or online would be fully and transparently sourced. People with important information to share would have the courage and safety to be named in our stories and not face repercussions. Naming sources is always our preferred choice.

    But there can be a fine balance between transparency and accountability in a journalist's pursuit of the truth. Information from unnamed sources can be a powerful tool to learn important and potentially controversial facts about a story.

    At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.

    Our ability to protect sources allows people with important information to come forward and expose matters of public interest. If we do not properly protect our confidential sources, potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to expose abuses of power.

    It is common to hear that a source spoke to a particular news organization "on condition of anonymity." Most recently, the Atlantic published an article citing "anonymous sources" who revealed disparaging remarks allegedly made by U.S. President Donald Trump against military veterans. What was lost on some critics of the story is that the unnamed sources were not anonymous to the reporter or his editor.


    For those who think 'anonymous' sources aren't real sources.


    Of course anonymous source can be real. But that isn't the question. The question is whether the sources claims are truthful and provable. So, the only way for that to happen is if these anonymous sources give their evidence to the proper authorities for action.

    The anonymous accusers don't even have to face the accused anymore so their anonymity can be safeguarded no matter the circumstances.

    Yet, there's still been no proof laid on the table to corroborate these accusations and until that happens it's nothing more than an accusation.

    So until "j'accuse" becomes the acceptable method of ascertaining guilt or innocence instead of the troublesome "burden of proof" one, anonymous sources still have to present their evidence if not their names before they're to be believed.

    Have you ever wondered why Freedom of the Press is usually a Constitutional right?

    And like the article stated :

    At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.

    So to your question of provability, yes. They make sure it is, usually by different methods to ensure credibility.

  • Discussion continued in forums

    Register to comment on this news link
    back to CKA | close frame