An Anonymous Source

"In a heated argument we are apt to lose sight of the truth." ~ Publilius Syrus

I was listening to a news report yesterday about the Washington DC sniper trial, and the proverbial anonymous source was quoted saying it looked like John Lee Malvo was not going to testify this day, but possibly the next. Suddenly my focus shifted from the story to the use of anonymous sources. It seems anonymous sources are quoted in almost every news story, and I wonder if anyone but me has a problem with this.

Exactly how credible are these sources? How do we know whether they have any credibility at all?

As I have mentioned in the past, I have been in court trials a few times, as a witness, a juror, and yes, even as a defendant. This is what made me start thinking about the use of anonymous sources as reliable sources of important information in news stories. During the recesses of these trials, invariably, there are spectators who mill about outside the doors of the courtroom discussing the days events, and musing about what will transpire next.

I wonder if the reporter who wrote the story I heard about John Lee Malvo got his information from one of these spectators. How credible could that spectator be?

I recognize that reporters may need to rely on questionable sources to give their stories some punch, and often times there are viable reasons to keep the identity of the interviewee secret. But is there some template or guideline we can use to ascertain whether these secret witnesses are indeed credible or not?

If not, shouldn't there be?

I have a hard time believing many of the stories printed in the New York Times and other Liberal leaning media outlets, and that feeling of skepticism is compounded whenever they cite anonymous sources. It seems to me that the more incredible the story, the more they rely on anonymous sources.

Ah heck, we might as well say the same about Conservative leaning news outlets. No doubt they are just as guilty.

Another thing I've noticed. People with agendas tend to take things that people say out of context. I know that isn't news to my Conservative friends. The left leaning media is expert at doing that, and they do it often. But let's be honest. So do the Conservative leaning outlets. I do not read NewsMax for that very reason. The obvious bias in their reporting unsettles me. I do not want to comment on news items that are not "fair and balanced", to borrow a time worn phrase.

And yet, we are hard pressed to find something unbiased.

Let me explain why I brought this up. Sean Hannity. Not just Sean Hannity but many other Conservatives, but he is the one who's commentary made me think of this point.

Whenever he attempts to make the point that Democrats are mean spirited and hateful towards Conservatives and Republicans, He always makes reference to John Kerry's statement about American servicemen who barge into the homes of innocent Iraqis "terrorizing women and children". Anyone who has heard that sound bite knows, if they are being intellectually honest, that Kerry was not calling American servicemen terrorists. But that is how it is portrayed by Hannity.

Additionally, Hannity often reels off a laundry list of inflammatory statements attributed to Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic party. While most of the statements he references indeed have no defense for their mean spiritedness, at least one of them is taken out of context, but Hannity continues to use it to demonstrate evidence that Dean is a raving lunatic.

That statement, the infamous "Republicans never did an honest days work in their lives", is misquoted by Hannity. And he very well knows it. He leaves out one very significant word that Dean didn't leave out of that statement.

"Many".

Dean actually said, "Many Republicans never did an honest days work in their lives".

Can anyone see how the omission of one word changes the ultimate connotation?

Of course, this doesn't mean Democrats aren't guilty of the same things. You all know I could reel off hundreds of examples of Democrats taking Republican words and phrases out of context to obscure the real meaning of a Republican's point.

I suppose in a perfect world, the names of all sources would be published so that we could check their veracity. I think that would go a long way toward re-establishing the credibility of the press.

And, In a perfect world, Democrats and Republicans would quote their opponents accurately and in context.

Of course, this is far from a perfect world.