Why does /pol/ support anonymity, yet shit all over it when it

>>134938898
What's incredibly ironic about this is the sheer number of mouthbreathing retards that fall for every larper that claims to be an insider and makes a shitpost.

>>134938898

because we are more reliable than people with degrees and 6 figure salaries in journalism

because any random pollack saying anything could be anyone, and any claims they make towards authority are laughable

whereas the media claims to be an authority, and then demands anonymity. you can't have both

>>134938898
Slide thread. Sage.

>>134939585
fuck off faggot
>>134939479
investigative journalists aren't blogging plebs, they need to be educated, be culturally competent if traveling to foreign countries and must establish trust with reclusive individuals

>>134939479
>>134939479
pretty much

>>134938898
If you can't prove what you're saying, I don't believe you, simple as that. Scientists can't get away with "this really smart guy told me x is true so you gotta believe it cuz it's science bro". Even English professors, historians, and social "scientists" have to cite sources to be taken seriously.

If journiggers weren't so goddamned lazy and biased their moral high ground argument might be worth a damn, maybe. But then again, a news article requires less proof than a 6th grade history report does so why should we take anything these people say seriously?

File: 1494363920114.jpg (26KB, 477x535px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 477x535px

>>134939853
>investigative journalists

Aren't those just mythical creatures?

>>134940292
false equivalence, journalism isn't an academic discipline

Op, the only thing you need to realize is that communists/socialists/feminists/liberals/cnn/msnbc are unmitigated shit eating faggots,

And they suck at physics, meaning they are inferior.
When u come to grips with this inferiority, reassess your post.
Anonymity is an option. If you choose to be not anonymous, then you should know what it entails. If you use anonymous means to communicate, you have a right to remain anonymous.
Either way the fatherfuckers in the us gov are watching us anyway.
Even the holy bible said "there will always be faggots"
Today its the us government

File: 1496189157493.png (454KB, 694x808px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 694x808px

>>134938898
Anonymity on an image board is not the sane as anonymity for the source of a story for a multi-billion dollar media enterprise with White House press credentials.

I wish only people with 90+ IQ were allowed to make threads so shitty OPs like this one wouldn't be able to talk so much.

>>134940642
What the fuck does not knowing concepts about physics have to do with journalistic integrity?

Shill slide thread
>>134940473

>>134940629
Where are "real" journalists trained?

I would argue that if you can't put forth a well reasoned argument cited by actual, verifiable sources as a journalist, you've got absolutely no business doing anything besides on the ground reporting directly describing what you are seeing without providing any commentary.

>>134940830
Both anonymous users on an image board and journalists working for news media corporations are a part of the claimsmaking process
>>134940991
>muh shills
>muh slide threads
I thought /pol/ was opposed to the idea of safe spaces and shutting down discussion

>>134941080
You do realize that one of the ways Watergate was exposed was through a confidential source, yes?

>>134940991
Absolutely amazing
My thread is about the protection of anonymous sources and you link to a thread about someone posting on /pol/ anomalously breaking news
>>134939067 was right

>>134938898
>Anonymity between individuals shitposting on an imageboard
>Reputable transnational news broadcasters allowed to use uncited "sources"

These two things are not the same.
Imagine if news reports had to follow the same rules as a high school book report assignment.

>>134940905
Because inferior ppl shouldnt have the right to breathe, let alone communicate their fecal grade liberal thoughts to others.

>>134941352
Watergate actually had proof. Im fine with leaked documents or anonymous information that you can show me is independently verified (as opposed to "my super secret source sez its true and my super SUPER secret source sez the first guy wasn't lying).

People are pissed at contemporary journiggers because they can never seem to verify their claims outside of unnamed sources. If, for example, Trump actually colluded with Russia then how come the better part of a year later no one has actually found any verifiable evidence despite the supposedly thousands of "anonymous sources" leaking info 'that'll totally ensure drumf is finished this time' coming out every day?

These people are a joke and you're pathetic for defending them.

>>134938898
Because they are just making up lies for political gain.

>>134940629
>false equivalence
This entire thread is exactly this
pol doesnt conjure up a narrative, over a course of months, that turns out to be mostly false and feed it to half the country

>>134938898
>it is incredibly unethical—dangerous even—to reveal the identity of your source

it is unethical and dangerous to reveal the identity of a source that is breaking a story involving criminal intent/corrupt/murder, it is not unethical to name someone giving their opinion when the basis of the validity of their opinion is that they are themselves.

>>134942268
let's be honest. we do exactly that. but we don't have any kind of professional requirement to be truthful and have valid sources

Sage slide threads

>>134941133
Youre still going with this? First of all CNN is a world news organization, which is supposed to inform people with the utmost integrity (which obviously they dont). The other is a Taiwanese virtual horse gambling website.

>>134942380
this
these leakers are leaking petty Putin bullshit info that happens to be classified.
What would happen???
They would be fired, and they should be.
Because one time they leaked that Trump shared intelligence with Putin that ISIS was using a new strategy to bomb airplanes using laptops.
THEY LET ISIS KNOW THAT WE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE UP TO.
>TREASON btw, the actual definition of treason
These sources are a threat, these political hacks pretending to be heroes need to be held accountable

>>134942543
>i turned on the TV and pol was there spreading lies
>was at the office this morning, stopped by the water cooler to see what everyone's take on pol's thoughts on X was

do you not understand what a false equivalency is?

>>134938898
The ability to speak anonymously is crucial, but anonymous sources are probably the least credible there are. Anonymous statements can be judged solely on the content of their statements.

>>134938898
because we actually present sources and put them into context everyone can see for themselves. they are just sayin "lol some guy said it was russia lmao" and we are supposed to eat it up.
we like anonymity because it gets rid of appeal to authority and results in the content being evaluated purely on the quality and not based on who said it. the media just uses it to make up random shit
sage