Unverified to you means "verified by a source that prefers to remain anonymous"?
Be skeptical of unverified and unverifiable sources. Sure the sources could be anonymous democrats; but they could also be Republican political operatives telling friendly journalists something that wouldn't be credible if it had their name on it.
Fully on board with that. It's why in journalism you see an indicator of closeness make it a more relevant source description. Like "democratic senator", "someone close to the president" etc. Moreover you have to question the publishers alignment and dedication to truthfullness.
But if people lack the critical reading skill to already mistake "unverified" with "anonymous source [of function/closeness to the subject] according to [insert news agency]", that is just trying to find truth in a statement ment to give you doubt.
Edit: On alignment of the publisher:
"Newsmax TV holds a conservative political stance, broadcasting many programs hosted by conservative media personalities. CEO Christopher Ruddy has compared the network to Fox News."
Fox News itself said not to consider it actual news reporting.
Why would a reliable source close enough to the president to know the truth about campaign aspirations go to a Fox News clone?
Maybe I worded something poorly there and caused some miscommunication. I was responding to someone equating unverified with made up. What I was trying to say is that it's unverified right now because the only statements on it were from what seems to be the same primary source(s) that wish to remain anonymous. That doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is false, only that there hasn't been a separate source saying the same thing. I wasn't trying to say "it's true actually, they just have to say it's unverified because no one wants to put their name on saying it"
I then separately wanted to explain what seems to be the thought process behind people saying that Biden wouldn't endorse Kamala going into the convention if he dropped out.
Unverified to you means "verified by a source that prefers to remain anonymous"?
Be skeptical of unverified and unverifiable sources. Sure the sources could be anonymous democrats; but they could also be Republican political operatives telling friendly journalists something that wouldn't be credible if it had their name on it.
Fully on board with that. It's why in journalism you see an indicator of closeness make it a more relevant source description. Like "democratic senator", "someone close to the president" etc. Moreover you have to question the publishers alignment and dedication to truthfullness.
But if people lack the critical reading skill to already mistake "unverified" with "anonymous source [of function/closeness to the subject] according to [insert news agency]", that is just trying to find truth in a statement ment to give you doubt.
Edit: On alignment of the publisher: "Newsmax TV holds a conservative political stance, broadcasting many programs hosted by conservative media personalities. CEO Christopher Ruddy has compared the network to Fox News."
Fox News itself said not to consider it actual news reporting.
Why would a reliable source close enough to the president to know the truth about campaign aspirations go to a Fox News clone?
Maybe I worded something poorly there and caused some miscommunication. I was responding to someone equating unverified with made up. What I was trying to say is that it's unverified right now because the only statements on it were from what seems to be the same primary source(s) that wish to remain anonymous. That doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is false, only that there hasn't been a separate source saying the same thing. I wasn't trying to say "it's true actually, they just have to say it's unverified because no one wants to put their name on saying it"
I then separately wanted to explain what seems to be the thought process behind people saying that Biden wouldn't endorse Kamala going into the convention if he dropped out.