• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the media name all their unnamed sources over the past 4 years?

should the media keep those unnamed souces secret?

  • Total voters
    21
trouble13

trouble13

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
64,478
Reaction score
20,027
For the 4 years of Trumps tenor the media has relied on unnamed sources presumably to protect those people from retaliation by the administration.

Given all the recent calls for blacklisting people who held positions within that administration these same people need protection from the "cancel culture" now.

Should the media reveal their sources so that those people are not mixed up with all those Trump sycophants?
 
Helix said:
because.
Click to expand...
If your not interested in engaging in a thoughtful discussion, why did you bother to respond.

Not for nothing but given your standing on this site I would of thought more from you.
 
Helix said:
i believe in giving a proposed topic all of the discussion that it deserves. a lot of things factor into that.
Click to expand...
In general do you not view those leakers almost like heros. Do you want to punish them. Isnt it time for them to step into the light and be rewarded for their heroism?
 
trouble13 said:
For the 4 years of Trumps tenor the media has relied on unnamed sources presumably to protect those people from retaliation by the administration.

Given all the recent calls for blacklisting people who held positions within that administration these same people need protection from the "cancel culture" now.

Should the media reveal their sources so that those people are not mixed up with all those Trump sycophants?
Click to expand...
If they don't name the source then they shouldn't be allowed to use it. Either name the source or face slander charges.
 
Wayne Jr said:
If they don't name the source then they shouldn't be allowed to use it. Either name the source or face slander charges.
Click to expand...
Thats a different question. What about my question. Should they reveal those names now that Trump cant harm them.
 
trouble13 said:
In general do you not view those leakers almost like heros. Do you want to punish them. Isnt it time for them to step into the light and be rewarded for their heroism?
Click to expand...

i have heard that some people love wikileaks.
 
No... just, no.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Who should reveal what names? Trump was asked to name someone?
Click to expand...
Im talking about the unnamed sources the media referenced in their articles. The ones that were exposing all of Trumps corruption behind the scenes.
 
trouble13 said:
Im talking about the unnamed sources the media referenced in their articles. The ones that were exposing all of Trumps corruption behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
I haven't been tracking any of that bullshit. Sorry.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I haven't been tracking any of that bullshit. Sorry.
Click to expand...
you dont need to track it to have an opinion.

These people worked on the inside to expose corruption and now they may never be able to work again because they are thought of as being part of that administration. The media can restore their reputation by naming them. Shouldn't they do that?
 
trouble13 said:
you dont need to track it to have an opinion.

These people worked on the inside to expose corruption and now they may never be able to work again because they are thought of as being part of that administration. The media can restore their reputation by naming them. Shouldn't they do that?
Click to expand...
They'll be able to work again, just not in that field. Time to pivot and take a new career.
 
trouble13 said:
why not?
Click to expand...

All the way up to international law and treaty level recognition, protection of source is a key principle in the establishment of free press. To argue to remove it is to argue for an ethical pitfall ranging from not just the making the source a target but subject to persecution by nations with no respect for the individual or freedoms.

No matter how you cut this, no matter how brilliant one thinks their argument may be, to argue that press must reveal their sources is all about political protections for those you agree with in exchange for harming the source.

It would weaponize the courts more so than they already are and give yet another avenue for the affluent to harm who disagrees with them.

These are all recognized truths which is why so many nations disagree with the idea of forced source reveals, of course noting a few case level exceptions and even then the means was questionable as was the impact.
 
trouble13 said:
For the 4 years of Trumps tenor the media has relied on unnamed sources presumably to protect those people from retaliation by the administration.

Given all the recent calls for blacklisting people who held positions within that administration these same people need protection from the "cancel culture" now.

Should the media reveal their sources so that those people are not mixed up with all those Trump sycophants?
Click to expand...
Absolutely NOT!
 
OrphanSlug said:
All the way up to international law and treaty level recognition, protection of source is a key principle in the establishment of free press. To argue to remove it is to argue for an ethical pitfall ranging from not just the making the source a target but subject to persecution by nations with no respect for the individual or freedoms.

No matter how you cut this, no matter how brilliant one thinks their argument may be, to argue that press must reveal their sources is all about political protections for those you agree with in exchange for harming the source.

It would weaponize the courts more so than they already are and give yet another avenue for the affluent to harm who disagrees with them.

These are all recognized truths which is why so many nations disagree with the idea of forced source reveals, of course noting a few case level exceptions and even then the means was questionable as was the impact.
Click to expand...
I would not advocate for naming anyone against their wishes. Im saying in this specific circumstance I would think they would want to be named to be distinguished from the trumpers. Companies are afraid to hire trumpers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom