09-06-2018, 10:09 AM
(09-06-2018, 08:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Good grief, all this back and forth.
When a journalist uses an anonymous source, they are (supposed to have been) vetted thoroughly. They check their credentials, ask them questions to get an idea to their credibility, etc., etc. Good journalists don't take statements at face value. Woodward is a good journalist and has a ton of credibility.
The issues with journalism right now come more from click-baity headlines than it does from the actual investigative journalism that goes on. The unfortunate truth is that the perception has allowed the ill-informed to apply the negative view across the spectrum, which just isn't fair to folks like Woodward. This isn't to say one shouldn't question things, but dismissing them outright because of one side or the other is just bias.
True.
Curious, can evidence from an anonymous source no matter how thoroughly vetted be used against a plaintiff in a court of law?
Probably not my guess. Amounts to hearsay...take it with a grain of salt...same approach I would take towards anonymous sources in a book.
