Evaluating Sources
Primary vs. secondary, named vs. anonymous, institutional credibility.
Not all sources are equal. A well-sourced story is built on a hierarchy of evidence:
Primary sources — Direct evidence. Official documents, court filings, data sets, transcripts, the event itself.
Named sources — People willing to attach their name to a claim. A named source is putting their reputation on the line, which makes their statements more credible (though not automatically true).
Anonymous sources — People who provide information on condition they aren't identified. Essential for some reporting (whistleblowers, national security), but inherently less verifiable. Good journalists explain why a source is anonymous ("who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter").
Secondary sources — Other news reports, analysis, commentary. These add context but are only as good as the primary sources underneath them.
When evaluating any claim, ask: How close is this source to the actual event? A diplomat who was in the room is more reliable than an analyst speculating from outside.
