I took a look at a number of them, and each one i investigated was not false. I'm not sure what to make of this.
I sense projection.Many whistleblowers are politically motivated or political disinfo ops.
Without unnamed sources, the public would be in the dark on a whole bunch of legit news.
Nope. These stories have a way of vetting themselves out over time. Watergate was reported based on anonymous sources, as have many others.
In the meantime, the public won't know the truth. How convenient!
I wonder if politicians have ever thought of using the "unnamed sources" tactic when making accusations against someone just before an election, knowing that it will take time to be vetted out. Harry Reid perhaps? But like the man said after being confronted, "Romney didn't win, did he?" Harry Reid’s appalling defense of his attack on Mitt Romney’s tax record
And how would you know a named source is telling the truth?
At least a named source can be investigated and questioned.
...and threatened and intimidated.
Then perhaps people accused in court shouldn't be allowed the right to face their accusers? If that were the case, every plaintiff would remain and "unnamed source".
The internet has a lot more information which I think is a good thing.
It would be tempting, considering that's why Donald's rape trial went nowhere, but we're not talking about the courts; we're talking about the media.
I see your Dodge, and I raise you a Buick.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?