Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputable newspaper like the New York Times, and although all newspapers are sometimes mislead by their sources, or otherwise get things wrong, when this happens at a paper like the Times, it is universally followed by a correction.
In other words, the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration, they're going to involve other experts, and they're going to ask questions of the principals.
This is not useful most of the time. I've never seen a viral correction. Damage is done.
Second, the point is not that reputable newspapers perfectly correct their readership's understanding. The point is that reputable newspapers correct themselves. Newspapers reputations are built on that honesty, and astute readers will have an understanding of a paper's track-record of accuracy and corrections. Less astute readers will rely on those that do track such things.
There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.
After 9/11, New York Times wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. MSM just takes Bush/Obama admin + intelligence communities claims at face value. It is supposed to be their job to fact-check govt, but instead they are just a rubber stamp for govt propaganda. The only admin they have been capable of properly fact-checking is Trump admin and that's only because their corporate sponsors & donors are anti-Trump.
When the intelligence community makes a claim, media fact-checks that claim by asking the SAME intelligence community to verify.
If they aren't willing to put in the work to be trustworthy, there's no reason to give them any trust.
Libel laws say that if you write something about someone that you believe COULD be true, it's not libel.
So imagine you are a writer who discovers a sensationalized claim you really want to print. But it could be completely false.
If you fact-check it, and it turns out to be false, now you know it's false. You could be liable for libel if you decide to print it.
However, if you don't fact-check it, you get to print the claim because you sincerely believed it could be true. Also, you get the advantage of getting the story out quicker, and you can always change it later if someone complains.
In other words, a policy of publishing without investigation would not limit libel liability. If the information is false, and the publishers did not have a good-faith belief that it is true, then they might still be held liable.
Come on, let's see some examples. Should be easy to find at least a few, since there are "tons" of them.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/new-york-tim...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/...
Small print corrections issued days later, are not effective in undoing the damage an erroneous blaring headline did.
I was just going to add that just based on the articles I read (in the NYT and elsewhere) that are within my field of expertise and how wrong they get basic facts, cause and Effect, etc. I don’t think I can trust them with reporting of other domains either.
News outlets across the board have entertainment value at best, nothing else.
They can do this by reporting facts, but generally it is easier to do this by reporting stuff people want to read, which includes facts and non-facts and things that may or may not be factual. This also generally involves summaries which aren't factually true as they drop relevant details, but which are close enough that people tend to tolerate them (see any reporting on a scientific paper ever).
Also, an "an anonymous source said X" could be factual, but the implication is that X has some level of truth when the only known fact is that in reference to that X was said by an anonymous source.
You've never regularly read UK newspapers I take it?
I wish that was their primary purpose, a few of them never let a story get in the way of their agenda.
Cut through layers of agenda pushers and give me facts.
Citation needed.
Here are some counterpoints to your assertion that they would not print a story not independently corroborated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-...
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/columbia-and-new-york-...
http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4379 [duke lacrosse reporting]
https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/wrong_wrong_wrong_w...
A great example of the Times and their “anonymous” sources (and lack of corroboration) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/maybe.htm...
Suggesting that the Times “isn’t going to print a story..without further vetting” is based on some idealistic view of the Times, but not necessarily on a reality based on their history. Didn’t they also just print an anonymous op-ed, providing zero opportunity to challenge or verify any of the claims contained therein?
The Times is a reputable as any other news outlet, but Reuter’s they are not. They are laced with a history of subtle bias and outright dishonesty when it suits them.
The first link regarding Jayson Blair is the clearest counterpoint, showing a Times reporter fabricating story. This is absolutely an example of the NYT failing. But the same Wikipedia article says that the NYT, on their own initiative, investigated and fired Jayson Blair in a very public manner.
> After internal investigations, The New York Times reported on Blair's journalistic misdeeds in an "unprecedented"[14] 7,239-word front-page story on May 11, 2003, headlined "Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception."[2] The story called the affair "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper."
To me, publishing Jayson Blair's articles is a huge mistake by the Times. But the way they handle it proves that they do hold their journalistic values in high regard.
The 2nd article itself admits that what the Times published is supported by many others in the media. (Their point is that the entire media is lying.) The audio proof that the 2nd article mentions is also not included, so I don't know if I should trust it more than I trust the Times.
The 3rd link is not easy to understand for me since there isn't a lot of context.
You may be thinking of "unnamed sources" or "anonymous sources". Those people may be quoted on a factual basis, but the reporter has an obligation to obtain the same kind of confirmation of their information as any other investigative lead.
Actually, that's not a tip by the NY Times definition:
A strong news tip will have several components. Documentation or evidence is essential. Speculating or having a hunch does not rise to the level of a tip.
What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows roughly passed off as genuine journalism, but really it's pretty obvious that it's the lowest common denominator kind of gossip-spreading.
Instead, the NYT wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's WMDs were and how he was supporting terrorism, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11. Nowadays they defend themselves by saying "everyone agreed at the time". It's not true.
Mainstream media is a rubber stamp for corporate and state interests, just propaganda. They rubber stamped Bush's war's just like they rubber stamped Obamas, they will probably rubber stamp Trump's too. Yes, they also contain true information, but they are still just corporate/state propaganda.
If they aren't willing to fact-check the govt for an issue as serious as going to war, especially with all the red-flags that were out there, like the fact that Colin Powell, a year prior to holding up anthrax in congress as "proof" that Iraq had WMDs, was giving speeches a year earlier claiming there was no evidence Saddam was making WMDs. Like the fact the Bush admin certainty about WMD was far greater than the actual intel communities claims. No one fact-checked them.
And, by the way, the NYT fired the reporter and an editor over that mistake, wrote numerous articles on how it happened, and instituted new rules to prevent similar things happening in the future.
https://medium.com/@Susys/lets-change-this-journalism-motto-...
And the problem is compounded in that the internet, for all of its glories, has also taught folks that their opinions/beliefs/dogma are just as valuable as actual facts.
I don't know what, how, or why. But the only two things different now to, say, the 80's in terms of bullshit journalism is its ability to reach people directly in a 'one-on-one' setting and its ability to be echoed with no challenge in online forums and the like.
Those sources aren't "anonymous sources," they're more accurately called confidential sources.
You may see an story backed by no public sources. You then have to make a decision about whether you trust the publisher to have adequately checked the story using private sources.
If the newspaper gets information from a truly anonymous source (say a classified military memo), they need to verify that it's authentic before they publish. They may do that by checking as much of the memo's content as they can and calling up people in the Pentagon and asking if they've seen that particular memo. Those people may not be willing to confirm the memo publicly (because that may open them up to legal problems), but if if their identity is kept private it's less risk to them so they may be willing to confirm it.
Better fact-checking tools in the hands of the publisher is critical here. It's ultimately on the them to decide if it passes the smell test.
I'll give publishers the benefit of the doubt that they at least attempt to corroborate anonymous tips with other sources. Perhaps some more accessible forms of anonymous expert networks with a trust/reputation system built-in can help, though the cynic in me sees how easily platforms like that can be manipulated.
Harsher consequences for publishing false news is a slippery slope. It's necessary at a certain level, but quickly runs up a slippery slope that can end up with tightly state-controlled media like in other countries.
What Makes a Good Tip?
A strong news tip will have several components. Documentation or evidence is essential. Speculating or having a hunch does not rise to the level of a tip.