Why Bruce Levell is wrong when he says anonymous sources should be ignored

[Towlie]

On MSNBC, Trump supporter Bruce Levell just blew off unidentified sources wholesale, implying that they should be summarily ignored.

That's wrong.

If a reputable news source reports information from an unidentified source, that doesn't mean that they don't know where the information came from, it only means that they're keep the identity confidential to protect and maintain a source they value. It doesn't really matter who the source is, it only matters that the trusted news source implicitly vouches for that source, and they know that if the report proves false then the reputation of the news source will be damaged.

It doesn't matter who the source is because you wouldn't know whether that source was trustworthy anyway. What you do know is whether the news source reporting the information is trustworthy, and that's what matters.

[Sneederbunk]

1. We shall find out if Levell is correct soon enough.

[Arkansas Granny]

2. What many people fail to grasp is that once you name a source, it's very likely that source

will dry up. Reporters spend a lot of time cultivating a source and revealing their identity could cost that source their job. They have to depend on maintaining their anonymity.