Why are unnamed sources treated as more reliable than named ones?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

:argh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7104-2004Jul22.html

"Also yesterday, Bruce R. Lindsey, who serves as former president Bill Clinton's liaison to the Archives, said he was not alerted to concerns about missing documents until two days after Berger's Oct. 2 visit. Berger was notified that day, and he searched his office for the missing papers. A government source claiming knowledge of the investigation said Archives officials alerted Lindsey to concerns after a visit by Berger in September. Lindsey said yesterday this was not the case."

But that didn't stop the media from printing this unnamed source's allegations as if they were fact. It seems that you can make any wild claim and have some "journalist" write it up as if it is an established fact. We know nothing about these sources -- whether they would have access to the information they claim to have, whether they have a motive for telling a tale, whether they have a history of deception, even whether they really exist.

They did the same thing with the McCain-as-Kerry's-VP rumor. Kerry denied it. McCain denied it. There was absolutely no proof other than some journalist reporting that somebody else said it. Where is the accountability?

We all want transparency in government. I don't think it's too much to ask that we have the same transparency in the media. If you don't have the courage to attach your name to your allegations, it shouldn't be treated as real news. I'm so sick of this garbage!

:grr:

[Sub Atomic]

1. It was last year sometime

that the White House issued an edict stating that the press could no longer quote an individual, just a "White House representative".

For the pubes, it's all about covering their asses.