After this week's readings about sources, I found myself growing skeptical of every report I heard.
This morning on NPR, Dave Mattingly reported that Russia is preparing to open two fronts of fighting in the Ukraine. However, he simply cited "multiple reports." With that one statement, Mr. Mattingly has stripped our ability to be informed listeners--critical thinkers who digest information slowly and consider potential motives for misinformation, among other things.
Where did these reports come from? Why should we believe them?
Anyone who follows world news is aware that Putin's motives, potential moves, and past actions are highly speculated about, but rarely actually known.
Even ESPN does a more solid job with sources (not saying NPR normally doesn't do a good job). They often cite "team executives" or "team members" as sources. Sometimes they also cite these mysterious "multiple reports," but more often the source is listed, even if not by name.
We should look to organizations that make a habit out of giving us reason to believe sources. More transparency!
I came across an article I was thinking about using in an assignment a couple of weeks ago that has TWELVE references to anonymous sources--and it's not even a very long article. I didn't use it that week but bookmarked it for future use. I'm sure it will come in handy one day!
ReplyDelete