You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I think it's fair to say there used to be a moderate left-wing bias at the BBC - those days are long gone and we have a government that directly threatens the organisation for not towing the line and tries to put pressure not to appoint certain people with the 'wrong' politics.
Just because people on both sides find it biased doesn't necessarily make it balanced. Lots of people were utterly convinced that the BBC was massively biased against Brexit but that was largely because the facts were massively biased against Brexit, but they didn't want to hear them.
We are turning into a horrible combination of the worst aspects of Russia and the US by the day.
They believe if you work hard you will be rewarded like they were.
The counterpoint to this is, they likely believe that the reason the next generation aren't thriving is because they are lazy bastards. Youth of today, they've got it easy, not like when we were growing up. They can't afford food, it's they're own fault because they're just not trying.
I think it's contempt born from jealousy, and it's not a new phenomenon. My gran used to tell me "you don't know you're born" when I was prepubescent. How often have you heard "bloody Millennials"? Some of those Millennials are in their 40s and grandparents themselves now. The old like to rag on the young and that, too, is likely a very Tory trait.
Her reliance on her sources/handlers is problematic.
You can level the accusation at pretty much all the Political editors: Sam Coates, Robert Peston, Theo Usherwood at LBC, I've heard them all use the same jargon they all probably use and rely on the same sources. One of those stories for instance is about her tweeting about a supposed brawl blamed on Labour supporters. The story turns out to be crap. The same incident was written about by Sam Coates in the same way, and was done so using the same two sources that Kuenssberg relied on, same withdrawal by the reporter in question, same apologies after the event by their respective organisations. 2 minutes of goggling reveals the whole sordid mess involving several reporters, but somehow this is used to single Kuenssberg out for special opprobrium.
57 per cent of owner-occupiers and 43 per cent of mortgage-holders voted Tory
Well, that's about as statistically significant as the 2016 vote.
It's really weird to hear people defend LK - she literally edited together two different JC interviews to make him look bad. That doesn't get done by accident.
Well, that’s about as statistically significant as the 2016 vote.
I know you've picked a side on this point and are determined not to be wrong, but you are. Read the article.
You're also moving the goalposts - 'well it's just a generalisation' -> 'well yeah you have facts to back it up but I've decided I don't agree with them'.
OK cool
There's none so blind, as those who won't see...
Both sides say there is BBC bias against them.
Ah yes the traditional cry however there are several issues with this.
Firstly just because one group claims bias doesnt actually mean it is true. It could just mean it isnt biased as much to them as they would like.
Secondly the "both sides" is a problem. Since we should also have the other parts of the spectrum also complaining about bias if your idea that everyone complaining shows a lack of bias.
Thirdly the BBC is big so you could have different bias in different parts of the organisation. BBC comedy for example does probably have a centre left bias (although the number of comedians further to the left are minimal) whereas the politics was rightward bias. I mean can you imagine anyone so hard left as Andrew Neil is to the right having a position of power for any time?
57 per cent of owner-occupiers and 43 per cent of mortgage-holders voted Tory
Is it the home ownership or the age which is the cause of the Tory swing? Generally older people tend to vote Tory and also you're more likely to own a home the older you are.
There’s none so blind, as those who won’t see…
Which means what exactly?
but somehow this is used to single Kuenssberg out for special opprobrium.
Peston got a lot of crap for it as well although its worth noting he did seem more apologetic about it than she did.
She gets more grief since for years she reliably reported whatever Cummings told her as a "anonymous source" whereas the others werent quite so bad.
I dont believe any of the others went full out with the dodgy editing of interviews either?
Well done for editing out the crucial part that discredits your argument folks. Jesus it's getting like FB on here. Expected better from Cougar at least. 🙄
Homeowners have, in turn, rewarded the Conservatives. In 2019, 57 per cent of owner-occupiers and 43 per cent of mortgage-holders voted Tory (against just 22 per cent and 33 per cent for Labour).
Yes i am a landlord - accidentally. I provide a high standard flat for below market rent and I gave my tenants significant discount when furloughed
I am well aware of what a fortunate position I am in
A lot of it probably just comes down to genetics/evolution – like most things..
I think I've mentioned this before, but I read a study recently that explored why when voters are shown "blind" polices (i.e. without revealing which party they're from) overwhelmingly support "left-wing" social policies and yet "right-wing" parties get voted in.
The study suggested that people generally are keen on "left-wing" policies but when asked to tell researchers which party they think they originate from, they often ascribe them to the manifesto of the party they just voted for, and in cases of right wing supporters the more content they are with their chosen party's performance in recent voting, the more they associate left wing policies has having originated from or are the actual policies of; right wing parties. It's self perpetuating myth making
She gets more grief since for years she reliably reported whatever Cummings told her as a “anonymous source” whereas the others werent quite so bad.
Sure, but from the question of "if you've got evidence, throw it up" and the response it a series of non-stories, then it doesn't appear so strong a claim. If anything aim your ire at Nick Robinson, an actual self-admitted Tory...and yet he gets away almost scot-free by comparison
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I read a study recently that explored why when voters are shown “blind” polices (i.e. without revealing which party they’re from) overwhelmingly support “left-wing” social policies and yet “right-wing” parties get voted in.
Nothing new. When polling if they ask which party will you vote for, you get one answer. If you ask which party do you feel most represents people like you (or similar) you get a different answer (tribal allegance etc).
There are lots of things which determine who people end up voting for, personality (belief in the person), relatability (can you connect with them), actual policies come a distant third....
Eg Labour at the last election, Corbyn mainly failed on the first two (for those outside the left) and the actual policies were irrelevant. Likewise Boris scores very highly on being 'relatable', people like him as a character and don't really care about the details.
the response it a series of non-stories
Really? Editing together two interviews to misrepresent/discredit someone is a non-story? Wowsers.
What about a programme about Johnson's relationship with the truth which contains no examples of him lying, despite him having been sacked from two jobs for lying?
And wider BBC bias? Nah....
It’s really weird to hear people defend LK
It's not really; people need to trust in institutions such as the BBC, so whenever there is any suggestion it's less than impartial, they feel a need to defend it. Overlooking any failings, is common.
Which means what exactly?
See above.
Another tactic is to attempt to discredit/dismiss any 'dissent', et voila:
Sure, but from the question of “if you’ve got evidence, throw it up” and the response it a series of non-stories
What is actually wrong with this?
What about students who need somewhere for a year, or trainee doctors who get rotated around hospitals etc, where do they live if not rented accomodation?
So; why not have social/keyworker housing, state owned, with revenues going directly into the public purse rather than private pockets? When such existed, housing was far more genuinely affordable. It's rental properties only being in private hands, that exacerbates the issue.
A successful economy needs a functioning rental market.
The UK economy was 'successful' when there was plenty of social etc housing.
Well done for editing out the crucial part that discredits your argument folks.
You claimed that "homeowners tend to vote Tory," not "homeowners tend to vote Tory more than they tend to vote Labour." Those are two very different claims and your cited source backs up the latter. I didn't edit out a crucial part, I didn't include it because it simply wasn't relevant.
It's not me who's doing the goalpost-moving, I'm afraid.
You claimed that “homeowners tend to vote Tory,” not “homeowners tend to vote Tory more than they tend to vote Labour.”
How could the former mean anything different from the latter? That was clearly what I was saying, what else could I have been saying? Homeowners tend to vote Tory rather than space-rat? FFS.
Explain to me how the statement you took issue with was wrong - oh that's right, you can't.
'The internet: pick a side, be a dick about it'
If you have 20 houses, one owner voted Tory and the other 19 didn't vote, would it be fair to say that most of them voted Tory without further qualification?
What if 57% of them voted Tory, which is the actual figure? Anyone can just make up totally different scenarios to suit their argument, it proves nothing.
Perhaps you might want to look into the definition of the word 'tend' also.
What if 57% of them voted Tory, which is the actual figure?
What if 43% of them voted Tory, which is the actual figure for mortgage holders? Without further detail one could argue that mortgage holders tend not to vote Tory and it would be true.
Anyone can just make up totally different scenarios to suit their argument, it proves nothing.
And that's precisely my point. If you'd posted the stats in the first place rather than an inflammatory half-truth, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Is it the home ownership or the age which is the cause of the Tory swing? Generally older people tend to vote Tory and also you’re more likely to own a home the older you are.
It says as much in the article Grum linked, yes.
What about a programme about Johnson’s relationship with the truth which contains no examples of him lying, despite him having been sacked from two jobs for lying?
Sure that's a valid example, but you've got to weigh it against another story that suggests she shouldn't meet actual politicians, So of a list of 5/6 "so called" bias, actually only one and perhaps two at most show any sort of bias at all, ... Suddenly the story goes from on the face of it, quite strong, to with just the tiniest of googling, a bit lame.
like I said; Nick Robinson was an actual student leader of the Tories...and gets a free pass? weird.
What if 43% of them voted Tory, which is the actual figure for mortgage holders?
That might be relevant if I'd made any claims about mortgage holders.
If you’d posted the stats in the first place rather than an inflammatory half-truth
Inflammatory half-truth? Lol. You really don't like being wrong do you.
I made a claim, then backed it up with stats, and you've decided to argue with me for no apparent reason.
Without further detail one could argue that mortgage holders tend not to vote Tory and it would be true.
Except that you did have further detail didn't you.
Sure that’s a valid example, but you’ve got to weigh it against another story that suggests she shouldn’t meet actual politicians, So of a list of 5/6 “so called” bias, actually only one and perhaps two at most show any sort of bias at all
To you. As I said earlier; there's none so blind...
Considering the % of people (and therefore mortgage holders) that didn't vote at all, 43% of the total (not of voters) would make that well over 50% of mortgage holders who voted ticked the Tory box, a much higher % than of the total voting population.
Indeed. And given that I said 'tend' to vote Tory not 'mostly' (which appears to be what I said in Cougar's mind)...
tend
regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.
There's nothing remotely inflammatory or inaccurate about what I said. 🤷♂️
To you. As I said earlier; there’s none so blind…
If you post six stories which you claim show bias, and it turns out that, one maybe two of them could be viewed as bias, one of which could have nothing to do with Kuenssberg (how a programme is edited together) then objectively, you've not proved your case. So if the charge is being blinkered...you're as guilty as everyone.
So if the charge is being blinkered…you’re as guilty as everyone.
You'd like that. Sadly for you, it's not true. In your own words:
actually only one and perhaps two at most show any sort of bias at all
Even if it were only one or two, any bias is still against BBC guidelines. As a public funded state broadcaster, they have to be impartial, otherwise it's just a propaganda machine. So you admit that at least one or two charges stick. IE; Keunssberg/BBC are biased. As for Nick Robinson; goes without saying he's biased, but he's not the current BBC political Editor. Keunssberg is. She's biased and you know it.
Even if it were only one or two, any bias is still against BBC guidelines
Sure, In a career as Political Editor since 2015, that 's one instance while being on telly nearly every day, often doing multiple broadcasts over many hours of the day and night, and you've managed to find one (perhaps two) that show anything at all that could be biased. That's not exactly damning evidence.
Mleh, I couldn't care less, I'm far from a fan, but seems to me there's other things going on that mark her out to you as deserving as a special target when by any account her performance is no better or worse than most other political reporters on any of the other major networks. You think she's biased, I don't think you've proved your case.
That might be relevant if I’d made any claims about mortgage holders.
So you're saying that mortgage holders aren't homeowners?
I made a claim, then backed it up with stats
You made a claim, then when asked you backed up an entirely different claim with stats. We've gone from “homeowners tend to vote Tory,” to "homeowners who have paid for their houses outright tend to vote Tory more than they tend to vote Labour." Likely for the reason footflaps mentioned earlier, the largest common denominator is age.
Oh, I give up. Whatever.
Mleh, I couldn’t care less
Really? 😀
but seems to me there’s other things going on that mark her out to you as deserving as a special target
In your head. That's all.
So; why not have social/keyworker housing, state owned, with revenues going directly into the public purse rather than private pockets? When such existed, housing was far more genuinely affordable. It’s rental properties only being in private hands, that exacerbates the issue.
You can have both, in fact we still do have council housing (just not that much anymore). Plus there are more than just "social/keyworker" who need housing. Being a private landlord, providing a valuable service which people need does not automatically make someone a 'bad person' nor ban them from being allowed to have left wing views. Automatically assuming they are right wing just shows blinkered thinking.
Can't recall who it was but someone posted something about "there’s none so blind…" maybe that was what they meant by it?
the largest common denominator is age.
Almost impossible to separate it all out, if you're older you're more likely to have a pension, more likely to own a home, probably more likely to worry about crime etc. So many things correlate with age it's not as simple as just home owner = Tory....
Being a private landlord, providing a valuable service which people need does not automatically make someone a ‘bad person’ nor ban them from being allowed to have left wing views. Automatically assuming they are right wing just shows blinkered thinking.
Er, care to point out where that's actually happened?
Can’t recall who it was but someone posted something about “there’s none so blind…” maybe that was what they meant by it?
Just going to bask in the wonderful, beautiful irony of this... 😀
In my socialist democratic utopia I'd ban private landlords. Yes, people need to rent, but that can be provided by the state. All essentials should be provided cheaply (or free) by the state at a basic decent level. But you can still earn money and get better stuff if you want.
All essentials should be provided cheaply (or free) by the state at a basic decent level.
You don't need to wait, you can provide me with all my essentials right now without any political change required at all. Monthly payment by PayPal, suit you?
Utopia for you and I. The others can catch up when they see the benifits of our system
The others can catch up when they see the benifits of our system
On the contrary......maybe you'll catch up. Been there, done it...USSR...North Korea....Cuba....etc. a pile of over 100 million bodies to prove it and poverty of the kind we can't even imagine. Don't give me any of the usual tosh around 'we'd do it differently' because you really really wouldn't.
On the contrary……maybe you’ll catch up. Been there, done it…USSR…North Korea….Cuba….etc. a pile of over 100 million bodies to prove it and poverty of the kind we can’t even imagine. Don’t give me any of the usual tosh around ‘we’d do it differently’ because you really really wouldn’t.
I think we need to give it one last chance.
Molegrips can fund me. I'm positive that if we do that for say, my lifetime, the world will see from our happiness how brilliant the system is.
...and if the world doesn't, well at least Molegrips and I will have lived the dream.
As mentioned much earlier in the thread have a look at Singapore for government controlled social housing. They appear to be making a success of it.
The others can catch up when they see the benifits of our system
On the contrary……maybe you’ll catch up. Been there, done it…USSR…North Korea….Cuba….etc
That's not what I'm advocating, clearly I don't want a communist state because I'm not an idiot or a megalomaniac. A really shit rebuttal, if you want to sound clever you'll need to come up with a much better argument than that.
You don’t need to wait, you can provide me with all my essentials right now without any political change required at all. Monthly payment by PayPal, suit you?
Sure, if you let me tax everyone in the country and businesses and stuff.
You don’t need to wait, you can provide me with all my essentials right now without any political change required at all. Monthly payment by PayPal, suit you?
Sure, if you let me tax everyone in the country and businesses and stuff.
That's a 'no' from you then, and I think 'everyone in the country' will take the same view as you.
That idea didn't last long. 🙂
More LK impartiality news: Telegraph journalist Dominic Penna tweeted that LK and Gove had a dance-off/rap battle to Ice Ice Baby late night at a karaoke bar - someone asked if it was true and he confirmed it was. He's now deleted the tweet and says it never happened. 🤨
That proves that in a social setting after they have finished working in the same venue they are able to be civil. I've probably sung karaoke with a Tory at some point too
Going by Pennas twitter account 'no shapes had been thrown'
Journos rub shoulders with politicians as much as they can, that's their job.
Do you reckon she sat in her hotel room and didn't talk to anyone at the Labour Party conference? (In fact I know she didn't there was a massive daily mirror party at least IIRC.)
Do you reckon Owen Jones sat in his Hotel Room at the Tory Conference? Or do you think he was out and about talking to and socializing with Torys all week getting the inside picture? Is Owen Jones a Tory Stooge.
If you want news from someone who doesn't know any politicians whatsoever I am happy to provide you with a weekly e-mail update. It will be quite short.
I’ve probably sung karaoke with a Tory at some point too
Your worse than Hitler
More LK impartiality news:
At the same event...Lewis Goodall was singing Karaoke as a duet with a minister...and Nick Robinson was seen there, as was Robert Peston. Again, it seems there's some motive other than what she does, when folks single LK out for special treatment . She does the same things that all other political editors do...but only she seems to get criticized.
Mind you, now I think about it, I once bought a Conservative councillor lunch* so god knows what that makes me.
*I think it was an Egg Mayo Sandwich
She does the same things that all other political editors do…but only she seems to get criticized.
Maybe because she's the chief political editor of BBC news? With a track record of overly cosy relationships with the Tories.
Anyway I was more pointing out the unusual sequence of events in terms of tweeting, confirming, then deleting and denying.
I know you're trying to imply some kind of sexist agenda that's not there, so go you.
I’ve probably sung karaoke with a Tory at some point too
Are you the chief political editor of the supposedly impartial national broadcaster?
Going by Pennas twitter account ‘no shapes had been thrown’
What do the deleted ones say?
I know you’re trying to imply some kind of sexist agenda that’s not there, so go you
Mleh, you're the one who constantly singles her out, not me. Perhaps you need to examine your own motives at bit more closely?
Maybe because she’s the chief political editor of BBC news?
Are you saying that was your reason for singling LK out?
If so, why should being CPO of BBCN require lesser access to politicians? I'd have thought it should command *more* access.
Perhaps you need to examine your own motives at bit more closely?
Perhaps you need to stop making snide insinuations about other people's motives.
Are you saying that was your reason for singling LK out?
It makes her impartiality (or lack thereof) more important, obviously.
Plus it's literally whataboutery to say 'yeah but what about Nick Robinson, eh' when discussing things she does.
So now we have whataboutery, and a nice kind of straw man/ad hominem combo, rather than engaging with the actual issue. I really wonder why I bother with these political threads when this is the standard of debate.
Are you the chief political editor of the supposedly impartial national broadcaster?
And that's the crux of it; if you are supposed to be 'impartial', then cavorting with senior tory figures isn't a very good look, is it? If anyone can provide evidence of her doing similar with other political parties/groups, then it would be good for balance here, surely?
Mleh, you’re the one who constantly singles her out, not me. Perhaps you need to examine your own motives at bit more closely?
Classic tactic of attempting to divert attention by making unfounded/false accusations and insinuations. If you have any proof of this 'sexism', then again, let's see it.
Perhaps you need to stop making snide insinuations about other people’s motives.
Says the man who's constantly accused a journalist of bias without producing any evidence at all? Good grief, I know nobody's ever "wrong" on the internet, but your double think here is pretty strong.
Plus it’s literally whataboutery to say ‘yeah but what about Nick Robinson, eh’ when discussing things she does.
Nick Robinson literally has the same job as she does, as does Peston, Coates and dozens of others...It's legitimate comparison to other journalists doing the same things, speaking and spending time with the same group of politicians and advisors. It's a bit unhinged really, like you've decided she's some sort of mad villain.
If you have any proof of this ‘sexism’, then again, let’s see it.
Given that you consistently single out the only political editor with a vagina, I'll draw my own conclusion
If anyone can provide evidence of her doing similar with other political parties/groups, then it would be good for balance here, surely?
Well she was talking about the parties she attended at the Labour Conference on Newscast. Pretty sure she mentioned the Mirror Party.
I guess that's LK vindicated as far as you're concerned, great.
Nick Robinson literally has the same job as she does
Does he?
Says the man who’s constantly accused a journalist of bias without producing any evidence at all?
You've been given many clear examples, but you just start waffling on about Robert Peston and calling people sexist instead of engaging with them.
It’s a bit unhinged really, like you’ve decided she’s some sort of mad villain.
Oh cool more ad homs and an implication of mental illness. You must have a really strong argument.
Given that you consistently single out the only political editor with a vagina, I’ll draw my own conclusion.
YOU'RE the one making an issue of her sex. To me, it's irrelevant.
Well she was talking about the parties she attended at the Labour Conference on Newscast. Pretty sure she mentioned the Mirror Party.
Ok so let's see the evidence then. Still won't remove the fact she's a tory stooge though.
Oh cool more ad homs and an implication of mental illness. You must have a really strong argument.
It's not going well for them, is it? 🙁
Given that you consistently single out the only political editor with a vagina, I’ll draw my own conclusion
It's a very small sample size to be making such unpleasant accusations over isn't it.
Perhaps you need to stop making snide insinuations about other people’s motives.
1. Irony
2. You were asked what your motive was and you came up with something utterly unconvincing. So in a vacuum people guess motives.
Well, she's the only political editor in the country that routinely needs a body-guard. Like I say, I saw the 38 degrees poll while it was online, and I've seen some of the grotesque abuse hurled her way. It's hard to draw much else as a conclusion as to why she, amongst damn near every other political journalist, gets singled out.
Well, she’s the only political editor in the country that routinely needs a body-guard.
That's terrible but has zero to do with me.
Like I say, I saw the 38 degrees poll while it was online, and I’ve seen some of the grotesque abuse hurled her way.
So you are playing the white knight? Cool. Again, awful but nothing to do with me.
It’s hard to draw much else as a conclusion as to why she, amongst damn near every other political journalist, gets singled out.
Show me other leading political journalists displaying such worrying lack of impartiality then, that might make your claim of sexism more convincing.
That’s terrible but has zero to do with me.
You're part of a mob telling lies about her.
It's like the murder of Jo Cox, if you keep inciting people by repeatedly making up lies about someone one day some nutter is going to do something about it.
Riiiiiiight.
OK you're just trolling now, I'm done.
It’s hard to draw much else as a conclusion as to why she, amongst damn near every other political journalist, gets singled out.
the conclusion is that she is a tory stooge and part of the propaganda machine knowingly or not
Far more like than because she is female.
the conclusion is that she is a tory stooge and part of the propaganda machine knowingly or not
Far more like than because she is female
So the Torys say she's biased because she's a Tory Stooge?
Or are all the accusations of bias motivated by nefarious motives except yours?
You’re part of a mob telling lies about her.
Oh dear. All we've done is posted up info from the internet, verifiable facts, and now we're 'part of a mob telling lies about her'?
You should take up long jumping as a sport, Donnie.
OOB - there are all ranges of views - but there is no doubt that cummings used Kussenberg to deliver unnattributable briefings and that she us far too cosy with an uncritical of the Tories for a supposed impartial journalist.
Its obvious
All we’ve done is posted up info from the internet, verifiable facts,
Claiming she was singing with Gove when in fact she was at a sone kind party with load of other journos is intended to mislead to the point where it's a lie.
Claiming she was singing with Gove when in fact she was at a sone kind party with load of other journos is intended to mislead to the point where it’s a lie.
Except that the only person making such a claim, is Dominic Penna, who as far as I know, isn't on this forum. So perhaps it's better to direct your ire at him, rather than making false accusations against us.
And maybe just step away and occupy yourself with something more positive instead. Because this is unedifying.
there is no doubt that cummings used Kussenberg to deliver unnattributable briefings
I was watching those tweets as they were sent and they were fine. In fact I'm pretty sure I started following her on Twitter then *because* she was giving their (evolving!) version(s) of events, I bet I wasn't the only one that day.
It didn't show Cummings in a favourable light - quite the opposite so if she hadn't shared what she was being told you'd be accusing her of concealing information from the heart of the story.
I'm damn sure that if anyone from any party told her newsworthy stuff she'd do the same.
In this case even without attributes it was clear where it was coming from, we all know what "sources close to" means.
And it was being retweeted by credible journos. Are they biased too? Or was it just newsworthy stuff that everyone wanted to know.
There's none so blind...
I'm kinda tired of "an anonymous source said..." If you can't name your source then put your own reputation on the block: "... and I believe this to be true."
Beyond that we're spiralling dangerously close to Daily Mail "asking a question" headline material. "Does curry powder cause cancer?" No, of course it doesn't, but the genie's out of the bottle and your readers are wondering now.
I remember when journalists used to investigate news rather than regurgitate something someone said in the pub, or flat out make shit up. Different times.
I’m kinda tired of “an anonymous source said…” If you can’t name your source then put your own reputation on the block: “… and I believe this to be true.”
100pc agree with that.
Except instead of 'believe' they should actually check.
...but are us punters willing to pay for that thoroughness these days?
If you can’t name your source then put your own reputation on the block: “… and I believe this to be true.”
I think it needs separating out into the different types of anonymous source which comes down to those whistleblowing vs those pushing the corporate/government line.
An anonymous source reported company x was sacrificing children.
vs
A anonymous source at company x hq said this was incorrect and they only sacrificed consenting adults.
Allowing the latter to push the narrative they want without actually having to attach names to it makes it easier for them to discard the defence once inconvenient/proved to be utterly false. Whereas if you have press officer a then next time they sprout some lies any good journalist can prefix it with "just to remind you last time they got caught sacrificing children the excuse was it was only baby rabbits"
Peter Oborne has written a fair amount on the subject.
I think it needs separating out into the different types of anonymous source which comes down to those whistleblowing vs those pushing the corporate/government line.
An anonymous source reported company x was sacrificing children.
vs
A anonymous source at company x hq said this was incorrect and they only sacrificed consenting adults.
Nope. Either of those claims could be wrong or even both. You have to actually check.
You have to actually check.
As far as you can, yes. However I see no reason to allow the latter to be anonymous at all. its pretty much the PR department hiding from responsibility and so, even if true, they should be putting their name to it.
For the whistleblower though there is a legitimate reason to be anonymous.