I got an online newspaper survey (requested by a highly respected paper), and one of the questions opened a text box into which I was asked to enter my thoughts on subjects to be addressed by the paper’s contributors. This is my list of topics.
- ID of “anonymous” sources
- Explanation of why [the paper] has walked away from journalistic standard of corroborating “anonymous” sources with at least two on the record sources [Note: this paper is not unique; the standard has been ignored by all news media]
- Explanation of why we readers should believe “anonymous” sources actually exist
- On the premise that at least some of the “anonymous” sources actually exist, explanation of why we should believe what the source is claiming, given his fundamental dishonesty as demonstrated by his leak, which came at least in violation of his terms of employment if not his oath of office
- On claims that the leaker is actually a whistle-blower, explanation of why proof was withheld from readers that he exhausted all of his whistle-blower channels before he leaked
- Regarding 5 above, provision of that proof
- Identification of the whistle blower, since he needs no anonymity; whistle-blower laws protect him