Comments on: Unnamed Sources

By: Catechuchu

Catechuchu — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:21:13 +0000

IASM has a new name iamadipstick.com. The only difference between them is that a dipstick is useful!

By: iamasmartman.com

iamasmartman.com — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:46:04 +0000

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.

By: Rob B

Rob B — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:58:03 +0000

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.

By: Krusty

Krusty — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:40:45 +0000

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.

By: Jethro

Jethro — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:09:02 +0000

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.

By: Rob B

Rob B — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:28:35 +0000

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.

By: Marteeen

Marteeen — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:13:08 +0000

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.