Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue
what hard evidence? All I read is Global spoke with someone, but they didn't actually see any hard evidence.
|
Don't take lack of evidence as a a replacement for evidence of absence as we know transcripts exists and likely recordings. Both Globe and Mail, and Global were unable to attain the evidence, and one source decided they had enough to run a story while the 2nd was more prudent.
Globe and Mail reported that they were in discussion with this same sources (2 sources corroborated the story, not just one). Globe and Mail was unable to get a hold of transcript for themselves, as such chose not to report the story.
There's a pretty clear attempt by Liberal apologists (yes iggy_oi I will call a spade a spade) to dismiss the Han Dong allegations by dismissing Global's source off as it it was some bloke off the street that went around to sell a fake story rather than a legitimate source with privileged direct access to confidential info that these news organizations could not get a copy of to validate.
This is clearly not the end of the story no matter how some have been desperately trying to brush it under the carpet almost immediately. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new type of leak on the transcripts at an opportune time in the next few weeks (again, assuming the allegations are correct and that the Liberals were not honest in their 'no actionable evidence' claim ).
here is a good editorial the CBC defending their use of anonymous sources for reporting.
https://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/communi...edibility.html
Quote:
As I mentioned, we don't grant anonymity lightly. It's a principle of good journalism that the public be able to see the person making statements or allegations, so that they can decide for themselves the credibility of that individual. At the same time, some information is important enough that it's worth compromising that principle--somewhat--if that's the only way to get that information before the public.
Let me give you some recent examples of stories that could only be told, in part, by using anonymous sources. A nurse was willing to speak to CBC News about conditions in her hospital. She came forward as part of CBC's "Rate My Hospital" series and could provide important details and insights. But she feared that if her face appeared on camera or her full name was used in a radio or online story, she would face reprisals at work, even the loss of her job.
This past season on the fifth estate, we agreed to conceal the identity of a longtime companion of Luka Magnotta, for the episode "Hunting Magnotta". The source feared retribution and loss of employment if his name and face were revealed His contribution to the show provided unique insight into the cold and narcissistic personality of Magnotta.
In that same piece, we obscured the identities of two people who 'hunted' Magnotta - online sleuths who tracked him and warned authorities about his behaviour. Their condition for participating in the story was to have their identities withheld - it's the only way they can continue to pursue their online work. One had been threatened online by someone she believed was Magnotta, who said he would "find her."
We concluded that in all these cases, the concerns about employment, harassment and safety, were real. Combined with the value of the information we couldn't have obtained in other ways, we felt the measures we took were justified. Some news organizations, particularly in the United States, have banned the use of anonymous sources, but I think our judicious use of them, backed by our extensive system of checks and balances, is necessary for us to provide you with the type and quality of journalism you've come to expect from CBC News.
|