‘Sources’ in reporting may offer false details

The media is overwhelmed, these days, with “bombshell” stories attributed to unnamed “sources.” These sources have an almost unlimited list of adjectives to describe their origin; there are unnamed sources, multiple sources, reliable sources, usually reliable sources, impeccable sources, expert sources, knowledgeable sources — the list is practically endless.

They do have at least one attribute in common, the individual or individuals cited as the “source” of the “news” are unwilling to identify themselves. Is this because they are nonexistent, or just because they cannot back up their revelations with facts? The media claim the story has been verified by “multiple” sources. Considering the vast rumor mill in the Washington, D.C., swamp, it is not at all surprising that any rumor would have multiple sources, yet this fact does not support the truthfulness of the allegation in any respect. The fact that a “source” is unwilling to identify themselves, and make themselves available to answer questions regarding their allegations, relegates their allegations to the category of “rumors,” or possibly worse, propaganda.

Our journalistic friends in the media should practice their craft in an ethical manner, and appropriately identify news items attributable to unidentified sources as potentially false information. Until then, I shall continue to view “news” stories attributed to unnamed sources as very questionable, and potentially political “hit jobs!” JIM KING Rogers