Feb 25 2008
Unnamed Sources
US Presidential hopeful, John McCain suffered many arrows this week as allegations in a story written about him were published in the New York Times. Apparently, Mr McCain had been involved in an affair with a lobbyist 21 years his junior. Whether or not these allegations are true all I can say is good work champ. Old Johnny didn’t spend all those years in a Vietnamese war prison just so he could come home and keep his pants on!
But on a serious note, Mr McCain is being forced to fight a battle against the ghost of the unnamed or inside source. This ‘source’ could be someone he worked with, who had honourable intentions and felt they have a duty of care to let the people of America know that their perspective president is an adulterer. Or this ‘source’ could be an angry former employee who felt that Mr McCain was not very nice to them and didn’t thank them enough when they brought him coffee in the mornings, so they decided to make up a story about him to try and destroy his political aspirations.
The decision on whether this ‘source’ is telling the truth lies in the hands of the journalist reporting it. That is quite a deal of responsibility no?
Picture this, you’re a struggling young journalist at a big paper and all you seem to get given are police station openings to cover. You are in a rut, your stories are not being well received and your editor is riding you like a plastic pony on a merry-go-round. What would you do if some half credible former McCain assistant calls you with some interesting ‘information’? Would it be totally out of order for you to take a few liberties and chances with this source / story to keep the wolves from the door?
It just seems so easy for someone’s name to be smeared publicly when the proof of the allegations are that of an unnamed source. I guess I am happy for an unnamed source to dob in some big faceless corporation for poisoning our drinking water and protect themselves with the ‘unnamed’ identity. But where should the line be drawn? Another grey area for those engineers amongst you to ponder.
My personal opinion is if you cant name your source, you shouldnt be able to slander someone. Prove it or keep quiet.
It could have been anyone who made the call, why not a supporter of an opposing whitehouse candidate? Hell, if I am applying for an internal job all I need to do apparently is to spread some rumours they were involved with a workmate and the job is mine!
Dr Phil for president!
—————————-
You had me until the Dr Phil comments. I am gonna have to side with Tom Cruise here.
SJ
Where there is smoke there is fire. People don’t just make stories up. If this information has come out and made it to Newspaper level then it is likely true.
——————-
I would love to live in your world Rob B, everyone tells the truth there.
SJ
Once again interesting topic. No more unnamed sources.
An example of this is the Britney storys flying around at the moment. it is all just heresay and their is no proof to these stories that she is gone mad or is what ever else is being writen about. Unless you can name the person who makes the statement then it should not be legal to print the rumor.
——————–
I was not so concerned about Britney’s problems but I guess it is an example of where rumors are possibly affecting a person a great deal.
SJ
I agree, you should not go around telling stories about people unless you have facts, example, I heard a rumour that Showbag has inverted testicles.
—————-
Just the sort of thing I am talking about! Who is your source here Krusty? He has had limited sexual experience and his doctor would never tell, was it his mum? Reveal the source or risk the deletion of this comment.
SJ
Never said I lived in a perfect world mate. I am just saying I don’t believe someone would make a story like that up from scratch. To do something like that is pretty mean spirited and I like to believe at the heart of everyone is some form of truth and honesty.
SJ, I cannot decide whether YOU posting this topic is more ironic or hypocritical!! Do you not use this very site to slander individuals, corporations, governments bodies &, individuals daily without ever once naming a source!! You hide behind the guise of expressing your “well-educated opinion.” What you are doing is offering this suggested information to an audience of potentially billions of readers. As an e-journalist, do you have no moral obligation or conscience?? Or do you just put it in the Freedom of Speech basket??
Should you apologise to (among others) The US Navy, Australian Federal Government, the Reserve Bank, Corey Delaney etc etc etc
—————————-
iamasmartman.com, I cannot decide whether YOU posing this question is more moronic or stereotypical of or stupidity!! A blog is not a news agency, that legal battle has already been run and won by the bloggers, I thought someone of your “educated opinion” would have researched this before attempting to make an already defeated argument. In no way have I or do I lay claim to the reporting of fact. The title of this blog should give you a fairly clear insight as to the type of information presented here. I appreciate your thoughts about my influence on world opinion and the realisation of your ever increasing respect for my writing is duly noted.
SJ
IASM has a new name iamadipstick.com. The only difference between them is that a dipstick is useful!