Tweet
It seems everyday this story gets more ridiculous. Now the new *****holic choice of beverage is "ANONYMOUS SOURCES."
I dont need to rehash the situation but Bob Arum & top rank have already denied those allegations.
Anonymous Sources is as reliable & truthful as Burner's AKA Aldo Raine's prognostication thread.
All one has to do is google Anonymous Sources & see countless articles & opinions about how Anonymous Sources are maliciously used by writers & how often wrong Anonymous Sources information are.
From the oj simpson case to newsweek having to retract a story about the koran being flushed down the toilet, to the l.a. times artilce that had to be retract about puffy combs beating up tupac shakur,
Almost all prominent anonymous sources ARE PROVEN INCORRECT.
The foudner of usa today Al Neuharth wrote a article titled: Evil of Journalism; Anonymous Sources.
some highlights;
It's so simple. Most anonymous sources often tell more than they know. Reporters who are allowed to use such sources sometimes write more than they hear. Editors too often let them get away with it. Result: Fiction gets mixed with fact.
The only way to win the war against this evil is for journalists at all levels to ban all anonymous sources.
From wikipedia;
The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality. (Lawyers are generally protected from subpoena in these cases by attorney/client privilege.) Legal staff may need to give counsel about whether it is advisable to publish certain information, or about court proceedings that may attempt to learn confidential information. Senior editors are in the loop to prevent reporters from fabricating non-existent, anonymous sources, and to provide a second opinion about how to use the information obtained, how or how not to identify sources, and whether other options should be pursued.
Here's a article about the post banning anonymous sources by the amercian journalism review;
Anonymous Sources are used maliciously by many writers with no concrete fact. They hide behind the journalism edict of protecting anonymous sources from being taken to task if what they are writing is dishonest & inaccurate.
So take with a grain of salt that ny daily news article by tim smith & propagandized by drunk *****holic burner. Somebody could have said that, but that needs to be corroborated. The mayweather camp could have said it as a pr ploy to further defame pacquiao only to hide behind the anonymous sources shield.
I dont need to rehash the situation but Bob Arum & top rank have already denied those allegations.
Anonymous Sources is as reliable & truthful as Burner's AKA Aldo Raine's prognostication thread.
All one has to do is google Anonymous Sources & see countless articles & opinions about how Anonymous Sources are maliciously used by writers & how often wrong Anonymous Sources information are.
From the oj simpson case to newsweek having to retract a story about the koran being flushed down the toilet, to the l.a. times artilce that had to be retract about puffy combs beating up tupac shakur,
Almost all prominent anonymous sources ARE PROVEN INCORRECT.
The foudner of usa today Al Neuharth wrote a article titled: Evil of Journalism; Anonymous Sources.
some highlights;
It's so simple. Most anonymous sources often tell more than they know. Reporters who are allowed to use such sources sometimes write more than they hear. Editors too often let them get away with it. Result: Fiction gets mixed with fact.
The only way to win the war against this evil is for journalists at all levels to ban all anonymous sources.
From wikipedia;
The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality. (Lawyers are generally protected from subpoena in these cases by attorney/client privilege.) Legal staff may need to give counsel about whether it is advisable to publish certain information, or about court proceedings that may attempt to learn confidential information. Senior editors are in the loop to prevent reporters from fabricating non-existent, anonymous sources, and to provide a second opinion about how to use the information obtained, how or how not to identify sources, and whether other options should be pursued.
Here's a article about the post banning anonymous sources by the amercian journalism review;
Anonymous Sources are used maliciously by many writers with no concrete fact. They hide behind the journalism edict of protecting anonymous sources from being taken to task if what they are writing is dishonest & inaccurate.
So take with a grain of salt that ny daily news article by tim smith & propagandized by drunk *****holic burner. Somebody could have said that, but that needs to be corroborated. The mayweather camp could have said it as a pr ploy to further defame pacquiao only to hide behind the anonymous sources shield.
Comment