I imagine it is because of the exceedingly self-serving nature of the claims being made. An anonymous source who tells us that e.g. the government is kidnapping and torturing people is doing some kind of public service. An anonymous source who tells us vaguely that the government is bad but that Real Heroes like the anonymous source are standing for goodness is, well, incredible in the strict sense of the word.
Then say these things and stop saying, “He should put his name on it.”
No, that’s part of the point. If you go to a journalist with an anonymous tip of specificity and import, it gets reported, there are investigations, both journalistic and official, and policy gets changed. You can understand the motivation of the leaker, and you can understand why the journalist is willing to exchange anonymity for that.
If instead you go to a journalist with self-serving, unactionable twaddle with no import other than to create a narrative about how you are one of the good guys, nothing of any kind happens, and one wonders quite reasonably why the journalist is engaging in this sort of fluffing.
You are still saying things other than that he should put his name on it. You are saying it should be vetted by someone else. You are saying it should be based on evidence of some for and not be whatever the author wants to say. You are saying that someone, but not necessarily the public, should be able to back up the author’s stated motivations.
I’m saying his ‘revelation’ doesn’t deserve anonymity, and no one should grant it to him. It has nothing to do with corroboration because he isn’t saying anything.
magnet
5653
Sure, given his/her history I think it’s entirely possible that this particular anonymous source will have nothing that is worth discussing. If so, then anonymous should be criticized at that point. But since we haven’t read the new book, we can’t really judge it.
Getting indignant now is like getting indignant about Trump’s future Christmas tweets. Yes, they will probably be stupid. But it’s also dumb to start criticizing them before they even exist.
And even if the new book is another waste of time, that doesn’t justify condemning all anonymous authors. Plenty of them throughout history have had something important to say.
I’m sure many do. If so, I prefer to see the bias out in the open so I can draw my own conclusions. If a reporter edits out all evidence of hidden agendas, then it’s harder for me to decide whether I can trust the sources.
I don’t think anonymity is a privilege granted only to the deserving.
There are plenty of anonymous posts right here in the forum, some are probably more useless than anything Mr. Anonymous could write. Some are probably mine!
Their uselessness does not justify stripping their anonymity.
Yes, that’s fair enough. But I probably won’t buy Anonymous’s book, because he’s already set my expectations pretty low.
Nesrie
5655
One of my sisters told me that because I got a chuckle out of this only showcases why I am not really supposed to recommend comedies to her anymore.
ShivaX
5656
I mourn her lack of a sense of humor. :P
Nesrie
5657
Fortunately, my lil sister and I have more of a shared humor streak even though my other sister and I have way more overlapping interest. I tried though.
I woke up this morning thinking of this song.
Well done, Trump Administration. You accomplished something.
Strong economy, though. Winning!
Do as I say, not as I do.
Mattis continues to shine post-Trump admin:
rowe33
5664
With supposed adults like Mattis in the room, who needs children?
Kellyanne displaying her wonderful demeanor;
Quaro
5667
Though I often agree with @gtconway3d’s Tweets, I never like or retweet them, it’s just too weird. It’s not like she has some random position in the Trump admin doing normal government work - that’d be fine. But her job IS ONLY to dishonestly defend Trump in public.
