 What trusted journalism looks like in the age of disinformation, polarization CBC News is one of the most trusted news brands in Canada, but we do not take the public's trust for granted or assume most people understand how our stories get made. The editor's blog is an attempt to share some of what goes on behind the scenes. In thiCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
But there can be a fine balance between transparency and accountability in a journalist's pursuit of the truth. Information from unnamed sources can be a powerful tool to learn important and potentially controversial facts about a story.
At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.
Our ability to protect sources allows people with important information to come forward and expose matters of public interest. If we do not properly protect our confidential sources, potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to expose abuses of power.
It is common to hear that a source spoke to a particular news organization "on condition of anonymity." Most recently, the Atlantic published an article citing "anonymous sources" who revealed disparaging remarks allegedly made by U.S. President Donald Trump against military veterans. What was lost on some critics of the story is that the unnamed sources were not anonymous to the reporter or his editor.
For those who think 'anonymous' sources aren't real sources.
But there can be a fine balance between transparency and accountability in a journalist's pursuit of the truth. Information from unnamed sources can be a powerful tool to learn important and potentially controversial facts about a story.
At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.
Our ability to protect sources allows people with important information to come forward and expose matters of public interest. If we do not properly protect our confidential sources, potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to expose abuses of power.
It is common to hear that a source spoke to a particular news organization "on condition of anonymity." Most recently, the Atlantic published an article citing "anonymous sources" who revealed disparaging remarks allegedly made by U.S. President Donald Trump against military veterans. What was lost on some critics of the story is that the unnamed sources were not anonymous to the reporter or his editor.
For those who think 'anonymous' sources aren't real sources.
Of course anonymous source can be real. But that isn't the question. The question is whether the sources claims are truthful and provable. So, the only way for that to happen is if these anonymous sources give their evidence to the proper authorities for action.
The anonymous accusers don't even have to face the accused anymore so their anonymity can be safeguarded no matter the circumstances.
Yet, there's still been no proof laid on the table to corroborate these accusations and until that happens it's nothing more than an accusation.
So until "j'accuse" becomes the acceptable method of ascertaining guilt or innocence instead of the troublesome "burden of proof" one, anonymous sources still have to present their evidence if not their names before they're to be believed.
Then ask yourself why anonymous sources want remain anonymous if speaking the truth.
Why? Because of retaliation of course!
Whether it's doxxing from people online, harassment, or even threats against their economic livelihood, people nowadays have far less protection than they used to, despite so-called 'whistleblower' legislation.
But there can be a fine balance between transparency and accountability in a journalist's pursuit of the truth. Information from unnamed sources can be a powerful tool to learn important and potentially controversial facts about a story.
At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.
Our ability to protect sources allows people with important information to come forward and expose matters of public interest. If we do not properly protect our confidential sources, potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to expose abuses of power.
It is common to hear that a source spoke to a particular news organization "on condition of anonymity." Most recently, the Atlantic published an article citing "anonymous sources" who revealed disparaging remarks allegedly made by U.S. President Donald Trump against military veterans. What was lost on some critics of the story is that the unnamed sources were not anonymous to the reporter or his editor.
For those who think 'anonymous' sources aren't real sources.
Of course anonymous source can be real. But that isn't the question. The question is whether the sources claims are truthful and provable. So, the only way for that to happen is if these anonymous sources give their evidence to the proper authorities for action.
The anonymous accusers don't even have to face the accused anymore so their anonymity can be safeguarded no matter the circumstances.
Yet, there's still been no proof laid on the table to corroborate these accusations and until that happens it's nothing more than an accusation.
So until "j'accuse" becomes the acceptable method of ascertaining guilt or innocence instead of the troublesome "burden of proof" one, anonymous sources still have to present their evidence if not their names before they're to be believed.
Have you ever wondered why Freedom of the Press is usually a Constitutional right?
And like the article stated :
So to your question of provability, yes. They make sure it is, usually by different methods to ensure credibility.
John Bolton despises President Trump. He was fired by President Trump. He has wrote a book tearing down President Trump. He says that he was in the room at the time that this incident supposedly took place. He says that he did NOT hear President Trump say any such thing. I will believe the NAMED source that hates and despises the President over some UNNAMED source that some lightweight political hack passing himself off as a "journalist" tells me to trust.
The fact that some "journalist" that is not making his living on the free market of ideas is telling me who to trust, pretty much clarifies that this person is not a real journalist at all. A paid political hack sponging off of the public dime would be a much better description of this parasite.
Then ask yourself why anonymous sources want remain anonymous if speaking the truth.
Ask Colonel Vindman.
Then ask yourself why anonymous sources want remain anonymous if speaking the truth.
Ask Colonel Vindman.
Or the families of the children murdered at sandy hook harassed by right wing conspiracy nuts.
Then ask yourself why anonymous sources want remain anonymous if speaking the truth.
Ask Colonel Vindman.
Or the families of the children murdered at sandy hook harassed by right wing conspiracy nuts.
Or Ambassador Yovanovitch
Example:
A lie goes around the world three times before the truth puts its boots on.
Example:
To his credit, he's already retracted it and posted he fucked up by not confirming it first.
The people get to decide who they trust.
Because that has worked so well in the past.
The people get to decide who they trust.
Because that has worked so well in the past.
But he's right. We can't force people to trust sources. The problem is we also don't teach people how to determine credible sources. So you get smooth brains down south taking what some idiot with no education says as true and not the doctors/researchers who have spent their lives in the field.
That's what happens when education and academia is attacked as elitist and propaganda.
The people get to decide who they trust.
Because that has worked so well in the past.
But he's right. We can't force people to trust sources. The problem is we also don't teach people how to determine credible sources. So you get smooth brains down south taking what some idiot with no education says as true and not the doctors/researchers who have spent their lives in the field.
That's what happens when education and academia is attacked as elitist and propaganda.
Or what happens when spin masters take over.
How the oil industry made us doubt climate change