View Single Post
07-09-2011, 12:23 PM
Registered User
Jester's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
I chose real. Along with Jester's and Coppy's points, sometimes a real source just isn't a very good source. That doesn't mean the reporter made it up.
Yep, and this is the big difference between "reporters" -- real journalists -- and what Eklund is doing. A journalist is supposed to display some discretion in what s/he reports, and actually analyze fact from fiction. This is the real problem with anonymous sources, because they are anonymous the reader has no idea where the information is coming from, and no way to determine what biases may be in play. Similarly, the "journalist" cannot really engage in their job because of the given anonymity.

As said, in sports, who the F cares? In the grander scheme, it's diluting the quality of writing that the public is getting from "journalists". In many cases, political journalists have turned into little more than mouthpieces for various factions and individuals who they allow to get a message out without putting their name to that message.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote