Will Muschamp Quotes

Casual reliance on unnamed sources...corrodes our credibility and, in cases that are rare but not rare enough, may abet journalistic malpractice.

Sure, some journalists use anonymous sources just because they're lazy and I think editors ought to insist on more precise identification even if they remain anonymous.

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.

Nobody believes an official spokesman. Everybody believes an unnamed source.

I think it's a lack of journalistic integrity to print things with anonymous sources.

If you are a journalist, check and double-check your sources. Don't just swallow what politicians tell you.

I think that the media should stop with this unnamed source stuff, put names on a piece of paper and print it. If people aren't willing to put their name next to a quote, then the quote shouldn't be listed, period.

It's the bane of both the news and sports businesses, both electronic and print - 'You heard it here first!' Who cares? That's nothing but a vanity play. If it's not right, it's garbage.

There was an honorable tradition of using anonymous sources that was ruined by Jayson Blair.

My comments are reserved for reputable journalists.

I am not responsible for all the journalists in the past that have told lies.

You convey something that the public either trusts or it does not trust, and it has to do with the content and how you handle the news, but it also just has something to do with your persona.

If it comes to be believed that we are simply a propaganda organ of some kind, as a lot of people believe about some of our competitors, that would be a problem.

Using these unnamed sources, if done properly, carefully and fairly, provides more accountability in government.

God, newspapers have been making up stories forever. This kind of trifling and fooling around is not a function of the New Journalism.

I deplore with you, the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.... As vehicles of information, and a curb on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless, by forfeiting all title to belief.

The public doesn't know what to believe anymore. We don't know what stories are supposedly true, this idea of 'fake news.' We watch it on what I guess you would call a split-focus. It's half entertainment and half mystery.

Clearly, you can't believe everything you read in the press.

Journalists who swallow the subject's account whole and publish it are not journalists but publicists.

It's the broadcaster's dilemma. Are we true journalists? I don't know if I am or not.

We're not into all those dodgy journos who makes stories up.

I don't like when people come out and say 'sources say' and this and that. Listen, if you can't put your name behind it, then don't say it. I don't believe in that.

It has been said that a rolling stone gathers no moss. I would add that sometimes a rolling stone also gathers no verifiable facts or even the tiniest morsels of journalistic integrity.

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.

Just look carefully, I only want you to look carefully. Do not repeat the lies of liars. Do not become like them. Once again, I blame al-Jazeera before it ascertains what takes place. Please, make sure of what you say and do not play such a role.