I think newspapers should not be allowed to report on any info given by a source who is not prepared to be named. Or the info needs to carry a warning clearly to that effect. That way we know when it’s likely to be lies.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The speaker should do something, the Tories allowed the media to tell their story , we need to return to the announcements in the HOP. If these leaks are Labour policy they need to stop it as well. Clearly the NHS England story wasn’t seen as exciting enough to brief or leak.
Thank you , Wes Streeting was very strong on this morning on the rounds. He sounded quite angry that the rumours have changed the “story”, Labour want this to be about positive change the media have spun this to be nasty Labour.
It shouldn't be left to a few dogged individuals such as yourself and a few others on SM to report the truth. The media is toxic, even the self-satisfied Guardian/Observer although they get away with it because of a few articles in the past by such people as Carole Cadwalladr.
Uncorroborated stories should not be published or carry a clear warning. But requiring sources to be named would be a huge damper on getting the truth. Terrible idea, unless you're rooting for the Establishment.
For whistle-blowers absolutely but unnamed sources apparently leaking a democratically elected policy are not whistle-blowers, there's a huge difference between the two.
Comments
I think there ought to be grounds for anonymity to protect whistleblowers
But those circumstances ought to be rare exceptions.
But unnamed sources should not be used to report factual news. News needs to be verifiable and references sources we can check out for ourselves.
I've only heard of one instanced where the Speaker has had to speak to Labour about a leak since they came into government.
It happened to be Starmer himself responding and he was certain it was not deliberate and not acceptable.
Truth is hidden in the pile of conjecture.