Unverified Sources Quotes

There is so much unreliable information on the internet and in the media.

Online journalism has always had a sourcing problem. From using unverified 'anonymous tips' to repeating whatever rumor or speculation people are chattering about, the general ethic is, 'We'll publish just about anything.'

All truths begin as hearsay, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm against the people that make up stories and make up sources. They shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name.

Who needs evidence when you've got the Internet?

Speculation replaces fact. It's very easy to see news outlets running with information that is unconfirmed or erroneous.

There are people who are bound journalistically to a code of ethics that means they can't quote something that isn't sourced, whereas what I do is entirely unsourced. I effectively fictionalise history and yet somehow aim at a greater truth.

One should not lift the rod against our enemies upon the private information of another.

Do we believe the Russians or do we believe our own lying media? Yeah, believe the Russians hands down, believe the Russians hands down. And why do we know that Donald Trump called James Comey a nut job? Somebody, unnamed source, called the paper and read them what Trump said. And then Sean Spicer got on there and basically confirmed it by saying, "Well, yeah, but this was a little out of context here and there."

Be wary of listening to stories secondhand.

Anybody who believes Yelp is an idiot. Most people on Yelp have no idea what they're talking about.

You find actually over the years that you get attributed with a lot of things you didn't do and you don't get reported on a lot of things you did do and I must say, when I read some of these things I wonder where the journalists get them from. They generally speak to somebody who's spoken to somebody who was down the back of a pub who heard the barman say, and gradually finds its way into magazines or articles but no, that's not the case.

What the Internet's value is that you have access to information but you also have access to every lunatic that's out there that wants to throw up a blog.

People come around, oh Donald Trump did this or that. I never saw these people before, I don't know who they are.

Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.

IMDb is kind of weird, because people can put things on there, but then I can't change it.

In cyberspace, 95 per cent of what you read is hearsay.

Unfortunately, often found next to things that are true are an enormous number of things that are not - in websites, videos, books and on social media.

The media tends to report rumors, speculations, and projections as facts... How does the media do this? By quoting some 'expert'... you can always find some expert who will say something hopelessly hopeless about anything.

I do Google myself. Not that often, though, and the stories are always rubbish.

The upside of web-based journalism is that everybody gets a chance. The downside is that everybody gets a chance.

You can type things on the Internet. You can have no credentials in any area and just get on your smart phone and write whatever you want.

Yes, there is a ton of information on the web, but much of it is egregiously inaccurate, unedited, unattributed and juvenile.

In general, I think people should be skeptical of the Internet as a reference tool because so much of what's on it is unreliable and costumed - a hall of mirrors.

Wikipedia's funny. Some of the stuff on there - I go there occasionally - it's unbelievable the amount of stuff that people will write on there.