There is no feature of paying for news that makes it more real. The NYT and WaPo should stop mixing news and editorial and relying on "anonymous administration officials" and intelligence agencies; that would set an example to other outlets.
We need some mechanism to actually authenticate anonymous sources if we expect them to continue to be taken seriously. It's exhausting to be bombarded by article after article that makes all sorts of claims where the evidence consists primarily or entirely of testimony by unnamed sources who may or may not actually exist. It's a "tried" practice, yes, but I have my doubts about how "true" it is in this day and age.
I don't pretend to have an actual answer to how we'd build such a mechanism or what it'd look like, but there's a need for it nonetheless. Maybe some trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party that can say "Yes, this unnamed source is legitimate"?
> It's exhausting to be bombarded by article after article that makes all sorts of claims where the evidence consists primarily or entirely of testimony by unnamed sources who may or may not actually exist.
Are you suggesting that reputable newspapers are making up unnamed sources or are too careless to privately confirm that they're real?
> I don't pretend to have an actual answer to how we'd build such a mechanism or what it'd look like, but there's a need for it nonetheless. Maybe some trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party that can say "Yes, this unnamed source is legitimate"?
It's been invented, and it's called journalism. That trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party is the newspaper itself.
"Are you suggesting that reputable newspapers are making up unnamed sources or are too careless to privately confirm that they're real?"
It's a possibility, yes. Are you denying that possibility?
"That trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party is the newspaper itself."
That's not a "third party", by the very definition of "third party". Unless you're suggesting a newspaper (or other publication) that's entirely disconnected from its journalists and editors?
I think any commercial enterprise that thrives on eyeballs will always have a perverse incentive to be "interesting"/sensational to one demographic or another.
This incentive is diminished for news outlets like the BBC, though not completely because they are funded by TV license fees which the British public complain about frequently.
Paying makes theml publisher less beholden to advertisers mean they need fewer fluff/shock pieces, which leaves more money and time for more serious journalism.
