> It's exhausting to be bombarded by article after article that makes all sorts of claims where the evidence consists primarily or entirely of testimony by unnamed sources who may or may not actually exist.
Are you suggesting that reputable newspapers are making up unnamed sources or are too careless to privately confirm that they're real?
> I don't pretend to have an actual answer to how we'd build such a mechanism or what it'd look like, but there's a need for it nonetheless. Maybe some trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party that can say "Yes, this unnamed source is legitimate"?
It's been invented, and it's called journalism. That trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party is the newspaper itself.
"Are you suggesting that reputable newspapers are making up unnamed sources or are too careless to privately confirm that they're real?"
It's a possibility, yes. Are you denying that possibility?
"That trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party is the newspaper itself."
That's not a "third party", by the very definition of "third party". Unless you're suggesting a newspaper (or other publication) that's entirely disconnected from its journalists and editors?
Are you suggesting that reputable newspapers are making up unnamed sources or are too careless to privately confirm that they're real?
> I don't pretend to have an actual answer to how we'd build such a mechanism or what it'd look like, but there's a need for it nonetheless. Maybe some trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party that can say "Yes, this unnamed source is legitimate"?
It's been invented, and it's called journalism. That trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party is the newspaper itself.