General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I can hardly believe the amount of power some here are willing to cede to anonymous or virtually [View all]Igel
(35,424 posts)that valid journalism can include a viewpoint.
That predisposes them to only partially "fully investigate" claims. If the reporter--a person--wants something to be true, counterevidence has to be mighty important. And if you don't want to falsify a claim, it's really easy to not find counterevidence.
We could have a court system with anonymous witnesses. After all, the prosecutor would vet the witness. Perhaps even the judge. But that sounds really, really bad to my ears. Even if it's standard in some countries.
Notice that "discredited because ____ is unreliable" is a classic fallacy. There's an element of pragmatism to it, there's simply not time nor resources to fully investigate every claim. But ultimately deciding that something is false not because it's false but because of the source is a bad practice.
I've been screwed over by "scrutinized" anonymous sources more than once. If you can't challenge your accusers, then the omission of important details is a real problem. Actually, pretty much every place I've worked for more than 5 or 6 years has had at least one such incident, with enlighted, self-serving "disinterested" people sitting in judgment with half the facts.
I'm also familiar with entire countries and political systems, not all right-wing by any means, that relied crucially on anonymous sources. Some also relied crucially on self-criticism as a way of both self-demotion and warning for others: Anonymously condemned, you have to publicly repent to show submission to the real power. You may think that the boss is the top dog, but when you see the boss or officer stand up and apologize for something most know he didn't do just to humiliate him and reduce his authority while a politruk stands off to the side with a lower rank or position, there's no question who's really in charge. Worse was that it was all unofficial, not in a legal setting, so there were no evidentiary standards or legal standards for judging guilt.