yeah but in our journalist circles, conspiracy theories are attributed to unnamed sources habitually.
hey man in a nation where one of the 'top journalists' claimed that a hurricane was a govt conspiracy to divert attention from thios and that, u have to be a little skeptical.
so unnamed sources as a rule arent automatically suspect in journalism.
you may have valid broader issues with Pakistani journalism but your post seemed to suggest unnamed sources are waayyy out of the norm for a journalist.
okay ji, there was going to be an emergency and condi's call changed that, elvis is alive, and osma has nothing to do with 9/11, angels fought against military at lal masjid, hurricane was invented by pak govt to divert attention, and swiss courts went after BB to divert attention from their nazi gold scandal.
so unnamed sources as a rule arent automatically suspect in journalism.
you may have valid broader issues with Pakistani journalism but your post seemed to suggest unnamed sources are waayyy out of the norm for a journalist.
nope I had just noted in my initial post that these sources dont have names.
Now you may take it that I am suggesting that they are "waayyy" out of norm for a journalist
while I merely meant that there are way suspect when it comes to news outfits like the one in question :)
so unnamed sources as a rule arent automatically suspect in journalism.
you may have valid broader issues with Pakistani journalism but your post seemed to suggest unnamed sources are waayyy out of the norm for a journalist.
actually when pakistani journalist use unnamed sources, they never give the opinion of the person who happens to be the subject of the story. alternate views are important for reader to judge whether unnamed source is telling the truth. motivation of unnamed sources is always a question. source can be acting out of personal grudge or because of idealogical reason. source could also be taking money from opponents. these things are common in pak.
nope I had just noted in my initial post that these sources dont have names.
Now you may take it that I am suggesting that they are "waayyy" out of norm for a journalist
while I merely meant that there are way suspect when it comes to news outfits like the one in question :)
ah, so you suspect the news outfit from the outset. given your feelings against pakistani news outfits would you feel differently about the issue had the actually quoted someone specific?
your viewpoint doesnt seem to have anything to do with naming of sources, since you afford other journalists/other countries the same luxury.
actually when pakistani journalist use unnamed sources, they never give the opinion of the person who happens to be the subject of the story. alternate views are important for reader to judge whether unnamed source is telling the truth. motivation of unnamed sources is always a question. source can be acting out of personal grudge or because of idealogical reason. source could also be taking money from opponents. these things are common in pak.
opinion pieces are different from reporting.
how are you different from a pakistani journalist? how do i know you havent taken money from opponents? these things are common in pak.
stating the obvious such as the possibility of unnamed sources being cooked up is not very informative. you are either assuming everyone else is extraordinarily stupid or just wishing to undermine an article that doesnt fit with your ideological perspective.
okay ji, there was going to be an emergency and condi's call changed that, elvis is alive, and osma has nothing to do with 9/11, angels fought against military at lal masjid, hurricane was invented by pak govt to divert attention, and swiss courts went after BB to divert attention from their nazi gold scandal.
good night :)
PS: and santa claus is real
U forgot to add Musharraf is a democrat at heart. :)
ah, so you suspect the news outfit from the outset. given your feelings against pakistani news outfits would you feel differently about the issue had the actually quoted someone specific?
your viewpoint doesnt seem to have anything to do with naming of sources, since you afford other journalists/other countries the same luxury.
i suspect the news source from teh start due to their track record
I suspect desi news sources in general due to the stuff like the hurricane conspiracy :)
now when you combine those two sentiments with a story with unnamed soures, then why should one not be suspicious.
yeah had they said ch shujaat said that, then I would have been more compfrtable with it because then either he can set them straight or try to back paddle out.
As far as what my viewpoint seems to have to do with. I think I know it better.
and no, I dont afford anyone such luxury, but there are news sources that are more credible or less biased than others. But yeah I afford dawn and the news more credibility than nawai waqt and jasarat. and feel chicago tribune is a more credible news source than chicago sun times... etc etc. dont others have differing views about relaibility of news outfits? surely we cant say that fox news and al jazeera etc are very reliable :)
U forgot to add Musharraf is a democrat at heart. :)
nyah, no pakistani leader or politician is a democrat at heart, and none have been as far as my memory serves me.. including that favourite civilian martial law administrator of yours... :)
how are you different from a pakistani journalist? how do i know you havent taken money from opponents? these things are common in pak.
stating the obvious such as the possibility of unnamed sources being cooked up is not informative.
opinion was the wrong choice of word. rather pakistani reporters using unnamed sources dont give the person against whom accusation is being made a chance to respond in the same article. in western institutions, there are strict guidelines for using unnamed sources. articles using unnamed sources always carry comments of a person against whom accusation is being made. as clearly evidenced from standards of pak journalism, such guidlines dont exist in pak.
^ you give western institutions far too much credit. i've read many articles about the present US govt where unnamed sources are cited without Bush or Alberto Gonzales having explanatory quotes in the same article.
here is a good example of a typical pak story using unnamed source. here an anonymous source accuses wollmer of being racist and the article contains no comments from woolmer. i know i would not feel to good if such an accusation was made against me without me getting a chance to respond. in fact if this was a western newspaper, i would have taken them to court if i was woolmer.
^ you give western institutions far too much credit. i've read many articles about the present US govt where unnamed sources are cited without Bush or Alberto Gonzales having explanatory quotes in the same article.
can you show me a story from a respectable western newspaper where comments from the government are not included in an article where an anon source is making allegations against the govt?
i suspect the news source from teh start due to their track record
I suspect desi news sources in general due to the stuff like the hurricane conspiracy :)
now when you combine those two sentiments with a story with unnamed soures, then why should one not be suspicious.
yeah had they said ch shujaat said that, then I would have been more compfrtable with it because then either he can set them straight or try to back paddle out.
As far as what my viewpoint seems to have to do with. I think I know it better.
and no, I dont afford anyone such luxury, but there are news sources that are more credible or less biased than others. But yeah I afford dawn and the news more credibility than nawai waqt and jasarat. and feel chicago tribune is a more credible news source than chicago sun times... etc etc. dont others have differing views about relaibility of news outfits? surely we cant say that fox news and al jazeera etc are very reliable :)
anyway, your initial post was only talking about unnamed sources being unusual and suspect, whereas it is an established journalistic practice. not about the reliability of the nation which is a seperate issue.
king faisal, im not going to trawl through the internet to find an article that cites anonymous sources and doesnt get the govts viewpoint at the same time. in my experience that is nothing unusual, and if i happen to come across another article fitting that bill i will pm it to you.