, do unnamed sources bother you?
We are continually barraged with news reports stating unnamed sources. It is almost like the media sitting in their conference rooms chatting about issues of the day and everyone chiming in.
The media presents a false narrative on any issue pertaining to Donald Trump. They have yet to recover from getting the election results so wrong and now seek to destroy his administration.
These cohorts express their public opinion about prevalent issues facing our country. Miraculously then these cohorts can become the unnamed sources referenced in the report.
I remember in writing courses that a story is always best if you can find a source that you can quote. It was our task, however, to actually find a legitimate person who could speak to the issues.
Martha Raddatz, fill-in anchor for George Stephanopoulos last weekend was pushed about unnamed sources by Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Deputy Press Secretary to Donald Trump. Martha emphatically said “Yes we use unnamed sources!”
Can legitimate news sources use unnamed sources? Better yet should they use unnamed sources?
In Matthew 18:16 it is stated, “But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
In John 8:17, “In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true.”
In Matthew, the brothers had a sin issue with another brother and Jesus was instructing them how to bring the sin-ladened brother back into the fellowship.
In John, Jesus referenced the law that required two witnesses to condemn a man to death. Throughout Scripture it is written that the presence of two or three witnesses must present evidence to rebuke and/or restore a person.
Never was it accepted on the word of one witness any action could be taken. AND nowhere is it permissible for any action to be taken on any person without the collaborating evidence of more than one witness. With only one witness, you have a 'he said/she said' and how can the truth be found.
The media on the other hand wants to follow in this manner. They present unnamed sources as their evidence and claim First Amendment Rights to do so.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Accused Needs To Face Witnesses
When unnamed witnesses are used to promote a narrative, it is a false narrative until more than one witness presents hard solid evidence to the effect of their testimony. Until then it is hear-say and should be thrown out by the court.
I Timothy 5:19, “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.”
In the court of public opinion through the media, however, the accused is not allowed to face his/her accusers and thus answers only to the media and their hidden agenda.
The accused must and should be granted the opportunity in a full court setting to face his/her accusers and have their case judged on the merits of the named witnesses.
Lastly Hold Media Accountable As Well As Accused
If the media can’t produce their sources – forget it. If their sources will not come public and face the scrutiny of the accused – forget it.
America deserves and should have the truth – good bad or indifferent. For the media to continue to promote the perception of wrong doing without any proof or substantiated witnesses is just plain and simple FAKE NEWS MEDIA.
They may have a legitimate story, but if it cannot be substantiated with named witnesses and hard core evidence before the accused, they should be held liable for their actions.
To stand behind a Constitutional Right granted to “we the people” and claim deniability and/or no liability is just PLAIN WRONG.
Please continue to keep our country in your prayers and let’s get past this whining and bickering from the left and get back to governing our country.