Sarrrge said:
They're actually said they had both local and federal sources so I think it was fair for them to tell people what their sources told them... Next time they may want to get additional sources.
But who are those sources? That's the sort of thing that's really declined as a standard of journalism and speaks to what LHF was saying. In a race to be first over responsible reporting, CNN decided to use sources that couldn't be held accountable when their information turned out to be wrong. If they had said John Smith with the FBI(or whatever) then A)the public would have a legitimate option to weigh the source's credibility and B) someone would be called to task if their information proved incorrect.
Good journalists will only use an anonymous source in a case where the secrecy is necessary, like Watergate. These days anonymity is just traded for access which is seen as necessary because, as LHF says, people put speed over accuracy. By using an anonymous source you're essentially asking the public to trust
you and when it goes wrong the blowback is on you. That's why CNN doesn't have a glittering reputation for journalism.
