Speaking of the Catholic Church's proposed ban on ordaining gay men to the priesthood, everybody is talking about a piece headlined "So an anonymous priest walks into the news room..."
The piece is--as you might guess--about the profusion of anonymous sources quoted in stories on the issue, including a recent New York Times piece.
Loose Canon thinks all the hand-wringing about anonymous sources is silly--you get as many people as possible to go on record and those who won't you quote anonymously. If you don't get enough people to go on the record, your story will b weaker. So what's the deal?
Get Religion, however, does raise an excellent question about anonymous gay priests who talk to reporters:
"Stop and think about this for a moment. Where do these anonymous sources come from? What groups and causes do they represent? Would conservatives making anonymous claims be treated by elite MSM reporters in the same manner? Is it fair to allow one side in such a hot debate to remain cloaked, while the other is defending its views in a harsh spotlight?"
Postingan
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar