Let's Discuss Anonymity (Again)

Oft time I've been criticized for not revealing who I am.

Because of this, I've been attacked by those who said the things I post shouldn't be taken seriously. There's a difference between what I post here anonymously and those who get paid to put their name to anonymous sources for a living.

Check this out...

The Sunday Times’ Snowden Story is Journalism at its Worst
and Filled with Falsehoods
By Glenn Greenwald | The Intercept

"There’s an anonymously made claim that Russia and China “cracked the top-secret cache of files” from Snowden’s, but there is literally zero evidence for that claim. These hidden officials also claim that American and British agents were unmasked and had to be rescued, but not a single one is identified... Beyond that, how could these hidden British officials possibly know that China and Russia learned things from the Snowden files."

My Comments About The Article AboveI've read at least five other so-called creditable news outlets who repeated this same story without questioning the Murdoch owned 'Sunday Times' report. The difference between these so-called professionals and this blog is I've always linked to multiple sources in which people identified themselves. Although I've chosen not to identify myself I feel it's both fair and accurate to link to the sources of those who are willing to do so when I opine about something. Although I feel entitled to express my opinions anonymously never would I do so without creditable evidence supporting those opinions.

Way too much of the mainstream reporting these days is based on "anonymous sources". This sends a red flag up and that is why I don't base one of my opinioned articles on them. You can check this out for yourself by looking back over my 1,600 some previous posts. Many readers no doubt disagree with me, but I always strive to provide creditable links.

I've always tried my best to be honest and ethical in all I've done here. Anonymity has a place, but in accusing someone personally there better be a link backing up those accusations. Something this exposé about Snowden completely fails to do.

I'm not defending Snowden. What I am saying is if anyone is going to accuse someone they need to backup their accusations. This goes double for the so-called professional journalists (something I never claimed to be).

Another Matter I Need To Clarify
I never claimed to be a source of news. Rather to present my views via being a aggregator of the news. I've noticed most of the profit oriented commercial media sites (including TV) do more repeating then reporting.

I play this little game at night. I watch the TV news to see how long it takes them to repeat what I already came across (sometimes days before). How accurately they report it and curious to see how well they could rewrite what producers no doubt Googled from the original source anyway.

... and this makes what I do here different from what they do how?