Anonymity is best for Experts?
Please give me an exception! It seems to me that everything anyone says officially would have to *first* be pleasing to ones boss or institution atmosphere, then after that it can be as accurate or truthful as the speaker can express himself. But in anything official there is always an intrusive element which brings in an inevitable LIE to the extent that the speaker can to tied to anything, including his own career of course.
The ONLY way this can be circumvented is for an expert to be anonymous. Then whatever they say can be taken at face value. This isolates the situation. Because no matter what a speaker’s declared credential, what they say can only be taken as said already. It’s whether or not you believe what they say that matters.
I suppose this passes a certain accountability to the news source. If anonymous news relayed by any news source proves reliable, then it will be trusted. This is also as it is anyway. The comfort afforded by credentials is always illusory. Or is it?
If given without attribution, any statement can always be more accurate. You know how when someone wants to really tell the truth they say “This is off the record” or “Not for attribution.” They’re just trying to escape the trap of credentials.
If all expert statements were anonymous, the ‘arms race’ of credentialism would disappear and the playing field would level. Results would determine all. Right now credential determines a fantasy result to an extent. With anonymity, evaluation of the statement itself will determine response.
