THE WASHINGTON POST has done amazing investigative work over the years, often citing anonymous sources. Their work breaking the Watergate Scandal inspired a generation of muckraking journalists, and spawned a Hollywood hit, All the President's Men.
But do they rely upon anonymous sources too much?
A reader wrote an email to the paper's ombudsman recently, saying, "While it is sometimes needed, I believe it is not appropriate to hide the names of sources to the extent that The Post does."
The Post justifies their action by saying that, to gain trust from sources, they must keep them anonymous. It's the only way to get some information, to continue being watchdogs of power.
But do you, as a consumer of information, trust information that is labeled as being from unnamed sources? Are you skeptical that the information is fake?
1 year ago