It strikes me how deeply fucked the concept of "anonymity" is that modern journalists are taught in journalism school. We were instructed to consider all sources named unless they asked for anonymity. That's a hold-over from the era when newspapers were ephemera. In an era of easy internet searches, sources should be immediately anonymous unless their name and place in society are immediately important to the story.
Not saying that you are wrong here, but many people feel that the place in society of the source IS essential to the story. In a nutshell: they will only believe stories if the source is high-ranking, therefore they do NOT want stories from anonymous sources.
Yes, I know it is a problem (think about whistleblowers, for example). But you cannot change the way the masses think.
You can try to move to a place with different peoples, like mastodon, though... :wink:
@lorax
Good remark, although the more I think about it the less I believe changing the way the masses think is the point of journalism. Journalists are supposed to inform, not really educate. Educate is for schools and university and some distrust against people with "high rank in society" should be part of their charter, I think.
It is an interesting question, but the 500-characters limit is a bit narrow to develop the point...
@lorax
@andrestmaur But Journalists CAN change the way the masses think. That's the point.