Is it normal for authors to make a bunch of claims without citing any sources?

[no limit]

It seems like Game Change makes a bunch of very specific accusations about private conversations between people. This book never cites any sources, only that the sources exist. And yet it seems like everything in that book has been accepted as gospel, why? To be honest some of the things just seem absolutely unbelievable to me. I can't imagine Clinton telling Kennedy face to face that he is only endorsing Obama because Obama is black. As I can't imagine Elizabeth Edwards being this horrible person that shits on everyone around her. Maybe I'm naive, but a lot of this just seems like gossip to me; but it isn't being treated as such.

[Haole Girl]

1. These days? Yes. nt

[Bucky]

2. Lots of authors do. They're called novelists.

Or, in the nonfiction world, hacks.

[TexasProgresive]

18. Actually novelists do a lot of fact checking.

Certainly a lot more then some of those who write political hack jobs.

[GreenMetalFlake]

3. It keeps people wrapped up in meaningless celebrity persona bullshit

And it works....fuckheads are goin apeshit over the who-said-what, and about whom nonsense that hasn't fuck all to do with policy.

[stray cat]

4. Did Reid deny the statement attributed to him?

What about all of Woodwards books and even watergate?

[abelenkpe]

5. In this century? Yes. nt

[hedgehog]

6. I can recall one book, ( maybe Manchester's Death of a President,

maybe one of the Watergate books?)for which the author placed all his source material in a library in a sealed box to be opened in 50 years. This was to avoid embarrassment for the people who told the stories but also to allow future historians some basis for judging the accuracy of the book.

[Midwestern Democrat]

14. David Halberstam also didn't reveal his sources for "The Best and the

Brightest" - the fact is some types of really damaging information is never going to be given "on the record" - particulalry if the source is essentially breaking a confidence.

[hedgehog]

17. That might be the book I'm thinking of. The deal was that people would speak on the record -

provided that no one knew what they 'd said until everyone involved was dead. It's one way to get people to speak freely. I was going to say that it didn't allow for rebuttal, but anyone who disagrees with what's written is free to add their own two cents without waiting 50 years.

[liberal N proud]

7. If they don't care about their credibility

Same seems to go for threads here at DU.

Many are posting information that they intend to be seen as fact without identifying their source. At one time here if you posted something as fact and did not include links to sources, they were quickly called out by other DU members.

Now days it's the norm to leave out sources.


(Disclaimer: This thread does not fit that category)

[Arkansas Granny]

11. I've seen threads here where posters asking for links to back up "facts" are told

to google it instead of being provided the link that was requested. That pretty much tells me that the OP is citing opinion, not fact.

[liberal N proud]

13. And as far as I am concerned, they lose all credibility

[shadowknows69]

8. "Sources? We don't need no stinking sources."

-Journalism, 21st Century.

[stray cat]

9. Did anyone believe Watergate - after all the source was not named

[Deep13]

10. Typical for political hit pieces, but not normal for legitimate journalism. nt

[WI_DEM]

12. And then just because they are in the media--the media will believe them over anybody else.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

15. Mark Halperin? Gossip?

Never!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7439497

[Bitwit1234]

16. I think it is libel...when it is written

it is libel over slander. Then sue the pants off them. Even if you don't want money but just the pleasure of making they shut the hell up...do it.