CNN is a top tier news-cycling media company. It has standards that it must adhere to in regards to sources, and their credibility. Did you see what almost happened to The Washington Post when their credibility in sourcing was drawn into question during the Roy Moore saga? Here, have a look:
This example reinforces two major themes of importance in 21st century news reporting. First, almost every major news outlet [[and their respective reporters/journalists) still need to respect the rule of integrity in regards to their task when weighed against the urge to drop a sensationalized story that could make or break a career. Two, these institutions now need to fend off collaborated efforts by partisan, money-backed, disguised groups looking to undermine the real truth. So in this case, WaPo needed to not only get the story right, but also negate the influx of misinformation designed to skew the truth, which was politically motivated in nature. Kudos to WaPo for maintaining journalistic integrity and doing their jobs.https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.8dad1db7c62c
The group’s efforts [Project Veritas] illustrate the lengths to which activists have gone to try to discredit media outlets for reporting on allegations from multiple women that Moore pursued them when they were teenagers and he was in his early 30s. Moore has denied that he did anything improper.
I've seen you use this rebuttal countless times on this board. Because a credible news agency does not reveal its anonymous sources, you are not allowed to automatically discount said story, and declare it untrue. Unless you can provide contrary, factual [[and sourced) information that refutes the original claim, no one will take your view points seriously. More so, when your cascade your assertion into mindless, misguided perversions of your claim [[as you did above) it only pushes you further from the conversation that real people are having.
It's the equivalent of: Because I said so, that's why.
Bookmarks