Reliable Sources

As we have had a lot of issues about what is a reliable source and what is not, I thought it might be worth discussing what we believe to be a reliable source.

For example, I believe that reputable news journalists should be believed when they say "reliable source" or "LE source" but others disagree..

I am interested in what can be considered to be a reliable source in this case?

For example, I would suggest that the person who probably knows all the answers - in my opinion, this is probably Terri Horman - is the least credible source of anything that happened that day and anything she says I want to be substantiated by another source or another factoid..

So I am interested in what you guys think of as a reliable source IN THIS CASE - given that LE is telling us nothing..

I thought this was interesting - it was posted after I asked KGW how reliable their journalists accounts were when they say "reliable source" or "LE source"

Reliable sources:
http://www.kgw.com/community/blogs/reporters-blog/Naming-sources-on-Kyron-Horman-coverage-98444134.html

Naming sources on Kyron Horman coverage
by Rod Gramer
Posted on July 14, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Updated Wednesday, Jul 14 at 1:44 PM
Some users of KGW.com have wondered about our use of a “reliable source” for information in the Kyron Horman investigation. For example, one person wrote that it appeared that KGW had risked its journalistic integrity or perhaps was using a Tabloid-style of reporting to get a scoop in the case.
I want to assure you that we would never do anything to violate our journalistic ethics, especially to "get a scoop."
We do not use anonymous sources lightly at KGW NewsChannel 8. We believe that in 99.9 percent of the cases our sources should be named and go on camera. But there are rare exceptions when we need to use a reliable source whom we cannot identify to get information to you, the public.
We only use these sources when we know that they can provide us with accurate and reliable information.
I realize that by doing this we are asking you, our viewers and web users, to trust us. We work hard every day to build a reservoir of trust with our news consumers. Over the years we hope that you would agree that we have earned your trust. It is at times like this, when we have to rely on unidentified sources, that we tap that reservoir of trust.
The Kyron Horman case is an important story. Our reliable source has been able to provide crucial and accurate information that helps explain what is happening with the case. Our pledge to you is that we will continue to apply the highest journalistic standards and ethics as we pursue this story.
Our hope is that you will continue to put your trust in our reporting.
Rod Gramer
Executive News Director
KGW NewsChannel 8

Bottomline is media outlets want to get the most readers/viewers. It is all about the money. Integrity? Doubtful. When none of the information from "reliable sources" can be confirmed, it is gossip. The source may or may not be employed in a position where information is or is not readily available. And the source may be hearing partial information and embellishing it to fill in the blanks.

Perhaps, even encouraged to release false information in an effort to create confusion or possibly anger in the true perp. By releasing false information, some perps will begin to get frustrated and come forward with real facts in order to get the credit for their crimes.

As for news outlets, if it sells, it sails. They will release it as long as it gets the most attention, and thereby, increasing the advertising dollars they can get.

I like to believe that journalists have been through a great deal of training and have had it imprinted into them how important it is to abide by journalistic ethics and standards. It is a profession, not a job..

If we cannot rely on our real journalists in society to know the difference between a "reliable source" and a non reliable source, we are doomed as a society because the way we view everything that happens is through the lens of the media..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

I guess I am spoiled because I was brought up on the BBC in the UK, where people got fired for mispelling the name of a witness, let alone for making up a story or using an unreliable source.. however, I still like to think better of the journalistic profession..

Note that I believe very differently for some news sources that are clearly not part of the journalistic profession - tabloid newspapers in the UK for example, are notorious for using unreliable sources.. but I understood KGW and the Oregonian to be of the former variety..

BlinkonCrime is clearly different.. Blink is, I believe, a journalist, but she works more like a blogger in many ways and by her own admission posts rumors and non-factual info a great deal - although as far as I can tell, she DOES label it as such when she does so..

Welcome Purpleprincess, cool avatar!

Thanks Eva

Maat wrote:Bottomline is media outlets want to get the most readers/viewers. It is all about the money. Integrity? Doubtful. When none of the information from "reliable sources" can be confirmed, it is gossip. The source may or may not be employed in a position where information is or is not readily available. And the source may be hearing partial information and embellishing it to fill in the blanks.

Perhaps, even encouraged to release false information in an effort to create confusion or possibly anger in the true perp. By releasing false information, some perps will begin to get frustrated and come forward with real facts in order to get the credit for their crimes.

As for news outlets, if it sells, it sails. They will release it as long as it gets the most attention, and thereby, increasing the advertising dollars they can get.

Maat
So, I repeat my question, if we cannot believe the news sources, and LE are telling us nothing, and we cannot believe someone we think may have been the perpetrator, then who do you consider to be a "reliable source" in THIS case?

After seeing how journalists have more than once crucified perfectly innocent people and claimed "reliable sources" as their basis, I have little faith in them. Let's start with Richard Jewell, and then you can work your way through all the other names. Lives, entire families and communities, have been destroyed by journalism touting their information came from "reliable sources."

Money is a powerful thing. As long as they can claim they had no reason to doubt their 'sources', reporters can state anything with no risk of retribution. Just turn a blind eye to the doubts, and you can say anything in journalism.

For me to accept a reliable source as mostly credible, it would have to be information released and confirmed by law enforcement. While they may still release false information in order to prompt a response, if they confirm it, then they are risking legal action. LE is less likely to release shady info if they believe a massive lawsuit will take place and they might have to pay out. Or if a so-called source put their REAL name on the line. Own the info they are saying, but by remaining behind the curtain, they have no more power or truth than the Wizard of Oz.

Nice to see you are talking to me again, though.

Maat wrote:Nice to see you are talking to me again, though.

;-) I am sorry I was very upset - took me a long time to calm down..

I am very very sensitive.. I am working day and night on this case, trying really hard to get good information.. but you are right, my info does not come direct from a confirmed LE source.. I think if we only went forward on info of that type there would be little to say in here ;-)

Lynn Terry of the Oregonian wrote this to me..
"I have extensively reported on this case and have always tried to be vigilant and accurate and fair. I don't think other news outlets are as rigorous as we are. I'm not saying they are bad reporters. They just don't have the resources we do. "

Maat - off topic - can you PM me and tell me what your avatar is all about? It has been driving me nuts trying to work it out!! ;-)

It's no big secret. Just Google 'Maat' and you will see it. Just an image that fit the name. I just thought it was the prettiest picture offered.

As for the sources, that is the bone of contention. LE is not saying anything. That means that the information probably has little basis. If it had any basis, I feel they would come out and state something along the lines of, "We have information supporting some of the claims stated" or "The information in the reports have been partially confirmed, and we are following up on this information." Or someone would have been named as a person of interest, or as a suspect.

The fact they have not even remotely come close to confirming any of these things makes me seriously question the reports. Unless they are feeding false info in hopes of stirring up something. I do not see LE allowing anyone in their offices to leak this much info if it were true. Why? Why would they allow so much of the case they are putting together to become public knowledge? They would be tracking down the leak and HUGE drama would unfold as they canned the person, possibly even charging that person with obstruction.

I see the sources more as people seeking their 15 minutes, even if behind the curtain, and loving the attention their words seems to be getting. The news forums love the increase in readership or viewership, so they feed the greed of this source. And since they have no proof that this person is lying, they can print it with little risk of legal action against them. All it takes is people to just not look too closely at who is providing the information and what benefits they get from providing the storyline.

I am open to other views, but sometimes my words come out a little wrong. Usually, I am not zeroing in on one person, just a train of thought. I can see how it may sometimes be perceived differently. I shouldn't read the comments on other boards. My frustration with them spills over here.

I think LE at one time did infact make a statement that the statements made by the family (meaning K & D) are not supported by them. So much of what they say I don't even believe. I do think they are doing a fair bit of revisionist history, and I do also think it is motivated by a deep need to believe the best possible scenario regarding Kyron's status.

They may want or need to believe Terri is responsible, and some of Terri's behaviors may infact be 'puzzling' or atypical - but when you look at them, none of them (with the exception of the MFH plot) suggest that she is involved. And frankly, in terms of the MFH plot, between her reaction to the 'sting' and her lawyers request for 911 records, I tend to think it's a bunch of hooey.

I'm not sure where it could have come from, a misunderstanding, an attempt to get 15 minutes of fame, or something more sinister on the part of the LS...but based on nothing more than those 2 things (her reaction, and the request for more 911 calls) I am thinking the LS is far more suspicious than Terri in terms of the plot.

So, bottom line, I am tending to agree with Maat on this too...that 'confirmed' or 'reliable' needs to come from LE.

Mostly because any outlet could call any source 'reliable' if they chose...like that reliable source that claimed Ky's body was found, and that Terri had been arrested...some parent at the school could claim anything, and it would be printed as a 'reliable source'...but what that person says may infact be a bold face lie...and of course, Desiree, Kaine or any friend of the family could do the same.

Without considering half the reports that claim to be 'reliable' only factoring in comments from D & K, they themselves have contradicted themselves...then add to it LE's comments...

It does stink that we have basically no information, and we are waiting on more from LE to move forward, and that it feels like why bother trying as we wait.

I do think we can toss ideas around - like I'd love to ponder some of the things that SoCal has to say - but I won't at all incorporate any of it into my 'theory' until there is something that comes out that suggests that some of her tale may hold some water, ya know?

So those are my thoughts on it...

KJ....Maat...I'm inclined to go along with the two of you. Unless we have something from LE that is "confirmed" (and even then sometimes, it's iffy) we can only discuss what we "think" happened.

What I find odd with this is reporters most will be balanced and fair. So why is it we know nothing about the other 3? What happened to reporters fairness and balance? Who is pulling the strings there? As far as I am concerned she been tryed and convicted in the newspapers. With all the revenge motives throughout this it could be anyone of the 4 or it could be a perp. Nothing I had read has convinced me she is guilty there have been no facts presented by LE to the public who pays their salery. All of what has been presented has been by the bio parents. I do not call that a crediable source with no confirmation of any sort from LE.

chatter2 wrote:
What I find odd with this is reporters most will be balanced and fair. So why is it we know nothing about the other 3? What happened to reporters fairness and balance?

======================================
I agree chatter2. The lack of balance in the reporting of this case is very puzzling to me.

From my perspective, in this missing person case, "reliable sources" must exclude Desiree, Kaine and anyone with something to gain by pointing the finger at someone else (the LS falls into this category for me).

I believe the family members were influenced by LE's initial targeting of Terri. It's common for LE to try to turn family members against each other early on and for good reason; crimes against children are usually perpetrated by a family member. BUT, that's not always the case and stronger families often support each other (at least publicly) until the fate of the child is known. It's much easier to ignite suspicion between a couple who were already headed for divorce at the time of the disappearance. Throw in the complex family dynamics of this blended and re-blended family and the fire can probably be fueled easily and quickly.

Desiree wants to believe that Terri arranged Kyron's disappearance because it's probably the most likely scenario under which Kyron would still be alive, imo. There is some good reason why she does not have custody of either of her two sons and both boys are cared for on a daily basis by someone other than their mother. It's not her kidney illness all of these years later. She was well enough to gain full time work, to date, to marry... Guilt and a strong desire to redeem herself (in her own mind) may be driving her opinions and recollections. From her own statements, it seems possible that she still has resentment towards Terri about the break-up with Kaine and possibly about taking second fiddle to Terri in the mothering department as well (though she never fought for custody, even when Terri encouraged it - per Desiree's own words). To me, these factors make Desiree's accounts biased and unreliable. She is in an awful position and I feel terribly for her, but she is still too biased to be reliable and objective. Not one word about Desiree's other family members, her friends, or her reasons for not seeking custody after her recuperation have been reported. It's odd given all of the reporting about minutia in Terri's life.

Kaine wants Desiree and the world to believe Terri is responsible because he needs to be right and has a vested interest in "winning" the divorce and custody cases, imo. His recollections are ever-changing and all of his accounts reflect him as being an innocent unknowing victim of Terri's schemes and the best father of all time. Imo, he knows a lot more than he's saying and has some ability to motivate all of his family, Desiree's associates, and his friends and co-workers from saying anything to the media. Again, very odd given the media frenzy on Terri. Extremely unbalanced - something is behind it - it's definitely not lack of curiosity from investigative reporters or the public.

Terri may or may not be a reliable source. We don't know because she stopped talking once she was the target of an LE sting. She did interviews, took LDTs, and allowed searches of her home, without an attorney, until the foiled MFH sting. At that point, the only prudent action was to lawyer up and stay out of the press (innocent or guilty). We've seen too many unofficial suspects worsen their situations by trying to refute early accusations publicly (Ramseys, McCanns..). Terri's family and friends, unlike those of Kaine and Desiree, have spoken publicly. So far, no one has said anything that remotely hints at her being capable of a MFH or child abduction. She may be involved, but there is no evidence available to the public to substantiate it at this point (though that's not stopping Kaine, Desiree and some of the media from labeling her guilty).

I believe LE should be considered a "reliable source" when the information is directly from them and they label it as "confirmed". However, in this case, LE has been careful not to officially release anything about the case. Their early "isolated incident" reassurance, imo, was a big mistake. They did not know what happened to Kyron when the statement was made and they may be afraid to retract the statement (for obvious credibility reasons), even if they now believe that Kyron may be the victim of a child predator instead of a family member.

Peace to Kyron and all who love him....

TruthB....
You said...

"Desiree wants to believe that Terri arranged Kyron's disappearance because it's probably the most likely scenario under which Kyron would still be alive, imo."

-----------

You expressed the MOST LIKELY MOTIVE, with perfection..

Imo, this is exactly why it was easy for LE to turn K and D against Terri...

This is the best scenario in which they can still believe 2 things...

1. (the best case scenario) which wud be that eventually, Kyron will come home alive and well, once she devulges where he is being kept...

2. That she will lead them to Kyron, so that they can have closure, and she can pay the piper..

I believe that loved ones are very easily swayed in many many cases.. because of the latter...

Knowing that the biggest wish for loved ones who have been victims of such crimes.. is to have justice served (and rightfully so) ..it is easy to manipulate the loved ones into believing it was ( a known person to them) as they woont have to live with wondering who did it, and why, as they will be provided with a scenario that as crazy as it sounds, and as little evidence is available to prove it.. it will ease their mind and let them have the unwarranted belief that the person who committed this will pay...

2.