None. If you won’t cite your source, there’s probably a good reason for it. Usually: You made it up, or it’s something you heard somewhere once, or it’s hearsay, or the source is biased.

^ I guess I will have to take it that if you read Newsweek and some anonymous source said this or that was happening in the government, you would not question it, after all, if someone else said it, it has to be true…... ~~

How did you get that from what I said? I said exactly the opposite of that.

If the source was anonymous, I would find the information suspect, and would want further evidence to support the claims.

OK, got you clearer, I guess there will be a lot of news you would have to put on hold, anonymous sources seemed to be everywhere when i read something. If they were not authorized to say anything, I wonder why they are?

A lot depends on the person reporting and how much credibility they have. The whoile Watergate scandal was anonymous in the beginning (remember Deepthroat). Even when the source is named you need a healthy dose of skepticism. The credibility of the information is very issue specific.

Generally, I avoid political news anyway. I cut off my TV service in 2009, and I’m a much happier person for it. Frankly, there’s very little effect that I can have on the state of the world, so I’ve pretty much backed away. I vote based on the past actions of the people on the ballot, which is all public record.

If there’s something GMO or climate change or whatever-related, I look for the science or follow the money.

I see the news as a jump-off point for interesting topics of study, not as a source of information.

I take it with a grain of salt, yet with the understanding that most credible news outlets won’t report an anonymous source story without some kind of verification with someone else or a way for the reporters to check on some aspects of the story.

(FOX is not credible at all, CNN barely more credible because they don’t outright lie, just promote any story.)

Sources never speak to me directly they only speak through an intermediary. If I trust the intermediary, I usually consider the source valid. There are often good reasons for remaining anonymous and good reasons for speaking out.

@zenvelo I take it with a grain of salt, yet with the understanding that most credible news outlets won’t report an anonymous source story without some kind of verification with someone else or a way for the reporters to check on some aspects of the story
Even if people behind the scenes at the news outlet knows where the info came, or if it has teeth, they still will not post the source because they want the info out there, but won’t get it unless they don’t post who the source is. To the public, the source is still unknown or anonymous so there no access or ability to vet the info out as those behind the scenes.