I am torn on this issue and will need to be persuaded. I feel that reporters should have that privacy opportunity to gather information from their sources, but not at the cost of national security, inaccurate reporting, and misuse of their power. Submitted by Allan.
I am also unsure on this issue. I think that reporters should be able to keep there sources private but i also think that they should have to share the sources if asked by a government official. ..... Brianna
I agree that in some cases sources should be kept private. However, if it is a matter of life and death, and the situation demands the source to be given, then I don’t think it should be kept private.
I am not very sure about this issue, a little unsure. I could use more information about it. I agree with Allan that reporters should have privacy opportunity to gather information from their sources, but not at the cost of national security. Persuade me! (: VM
I am not sure. It would be difficult to decide on the credibility of a source if we don't know from whom the reporter got it from..especially on matters of terrorism and national security.
I agree. Absolute privilage to protect their sources is the only way journalist will be able to get inside unbiased stories. If a journalist knows somthing that could threaten our security that's not their fault, thats our govenments fault. They cant depend on journalist for their intel, that is their job. -Jennifer
I am unsure about this. I agree with Allan that reporters should have opportunity to collect enough information from their sources. However, I also agree with Jen that, reporters should have rights to protect their sources.
I agree. Depends on the type of the story being reported, a reporter may decides to protect the identity of the source from public for safety and security reasons, even if this doesn't help the validity of the story.
I completely agree with this statement. I understand that sometimes it is very important to know who the source is but if this right is not ensured it prevents sources from wanting to come forward with whatever information they may have. Also the reporters should be granted this right because if the source requests to remain unidentified they should be able to respect the sources request.
Yes I agree, but the source needs citation for credibility. Otherwise all it is is a rumor. I may suggest how to protect sources if and when they are cited. I watched "All the President's Men" last week, the journalists of the Washington post struggled to find credible sources for the Watergate Scandal because the presidential party did such a good job of shutting everyone up. Until they proved credibility, they were conspiracy theorists. That's my only issue with your topic and look forward to hearing what you have to say about it.
I agree yet this can be a very tricky subject and it will make it hard to distinguish what information in genuine. I am looking forward to your next speech on how this. Monika
The immediate problem i see with this is that reports have the greater possibility to lie and unfortunetly people don't work with integrity and have to be tracked. Perhaps a possible middle ground solution would be that to the public it is private, but to publishers and governemnt officials, ect, its public? - Naomi
I agree with this statement for the most part. Someone's identity should be confidential unless it becomes a legal issue and taken to court. Then it should be allowed to be revealed. This is a tough one! - Jamie
I agree. The role of a reporter is to report "what happen?" without his/her own opinion or to change the fact because of political, military, or economic reasons. If there is something that is considered classified or would jeopardized national security, then it shouldn't be on the news. In this case, I think reporters shouldn't seek revealation these types of news.
I agree with this statement, i think that it is unsafe for the reporter as well as the source and they should be able to keep it anonymous to protect the source and themselves. -Anna
I am torn on this issue and will need to be persuaded. I feel that reporters should have that privacy opportunity to gather information from their sources, but not at the cost of national security, inaccurate reporting, and misuse of their power. Submitted by Allan.
ReplyDeleteI am also unsure on this issue. I think that reporters should be able to keep there sources private but i also think that they should have to share the sources if asked by a government official. ..... Brianna
ReplyDeleteI agree that in some cases sources should be kept private. However, if it is a matter of life and death, and the situation demands the source to be given, then I don’t think it should be kept private.
ReplyDelete~ Submitted by Laurene
I am not very sure about this issue, a little unsure. I could use more information about it. I agree with Allan that reporters should have privacy opportunity to gather information from their sources, but not at the cost of national security. Persuade me! (: VM
ReplyDeleteI am not sure. It would be difficult to decide on the credibility of a source if we don't know from whom the reporter got it from..especially on matters of terrorism and national security.
ReplyDeletenuri
I agree. Absolute privilage to protect their sources is the only way journalist will be able to get inside unbiased stories. If a journalist knows somthing that could threaten our security that's not their fault, thats our govenments fault. They cant depend on journalist for their intel, that is their job. -Jennifer
ReplyDeleteI am unsure about this. I agree with Allan that reporters should have opportunity to collect enough information from their sources. However, I also agree with Jen that, reporters should have rights to protect their sources.
ReplyDeletecharlene
I agree. Depends on the type of the story being reported, a reporter may decides to protect the identity of the source from public for safety and security reasons, even if this doesn't help the validity of the story.
ReplyDeleteARSHIN
I completely agree with this statement. I understand that sometimes it is very important to know who the source is but if this right is not ensured it prevents sources from wanting to come forward with whatever information they may have. Also the reporters should be granted this right because if the source requests to remain unidentified they should be able to respect the sources request.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree, but the source needs citation for credibility. Otherwise all it is is a rumor. I may suggest how to protect sources if and when they are cited. I watched "All the President's Men" last week, the journalists of the Washington post struggled to find credible sources for the Watergate Scandal because the presidential party did such a good job of shutting everyone up. Until they proved credibility, they were conspiracy theorists. That's my only issue with your topic and look forward to hearing what you have to say about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree yet this can be a very tricky subject and it will make it hard to distinguish what information in genuine. I am looking forward to your next speech on how this.
ReplyDeleteMonika
I think it depends on the situation and what kind of information the reporter is giving so I am unsure of where I stand with your thesis
ReplyDeleteAH
The immediate problem i see with this is that reports have the greater possibility to lie and unfortunetly people don't work with integrity and have to be tracked. Perhaps a possible middle ground solution would be that to the public it is private, but to publishers and governemnt officials, ect, its public?
ReplyDelete- Naomi
To me this doesnt make a lot of sense because revealing that information could potentially make your news more credible
ReplyDeleteSubmitted by Spencer
I agree with this statement for the most part. Someone's identity should be confidential unless it becomes a legal issue and taken to court. Then it should be allowed to be revealed. This is a tough one! - Jamie
ReplyDeleteHow would the information be verified?
ReplyDeleteI agree. The role of a reporter is to report "what happen?" without his/her own opinion or to change the fact because of political, military, or economic reasons. If there is something that is considered classified or would jeopardized national security, then it shouldn't be on the news. In this case, I think reporters shouldn't seek revealation these types of news.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement, i think that it is unsafe for the reporter as well as the source and they should be able to keep it anonymous to protect the source and themselves. -Anna
ReplyDeleteI think there are exceptions in certain criminal instances.
ReplyDeleteBen