HiDeHo

 

One of the posters on another thread pointed out that some journalists will report anything that they can attribute to a source.

They don't need to investigate whether it is true as long as they can 'quote' and subsequently report on that information.

Is this the usual difference between 'tabloid' reporting and that of the more reputable media outlets...or do all journalists consider information from a 'reliable' source as news?

Is Clarence considered a reliable source therefore making the fine line between 'tabloid' and 'responsible' reporting less discernible?

Treading carefully with the 'investigative' side leaves the media with very little to choose from as far as 'sourced' news goes..

Is this too simplistic or is this the main reason that the media 'seems' to only report on behalf of the McCanns?

The 'facts' remain guarded by the PJ...anything else is just speculation or opinion..

If they don't read 3A how will they know the 'details' are inconsistent?

Polandguy was, in my opinion, a trailblazer, attempting to bring information to the media that they, very possibly, didn't know existed.

Are we overestimating the 'knowledge' of the media?

Do we know for sure that the media are aware of the discrepancies?

What alternative do they have for 'sourced' information apart from Clarence?