Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I don't know, it's not a great look when you write that article and basically have no evidence. I'm one of the few (it seems) who is fine with funding the CBC and I actually think they do great work. But, if they have no evidence, it does call into question journalistic integrity?
|
What’s the journalistic standard though?
Per the article they have at least two sources who the CBC agreed not to identify. Is that sufficient to run this story?
Quote:
Our commitment to accuracy and integrity means we try where possible to verify the information with a second source. And there may be times when more than two sources are required.
Our stories are based on information we have verified. Wherever possible, our stories use first-hand, identifiable sources – participants in an event or authenticated documents.
The importance of second sourcing is influenced by the nature and quality of the primary source.
If the primary source is confidential, we will, to the best of our ability, attempt to verify the accuracy of the information through independent corroboration.
We will refer any decision to publish a story based on a single confidential source to the Director.
|
https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/visio...-and-practices
An interesting read on the standards they follow.