Hold on,...just because a source can't be revealed doesn't always mean the information is 100% bad. People get fired for leaking. People talk that are under contractual NDA. There are OFTEN consequences for leaking.You can ask. Some of us keep track of these things.
Notice how unfounded rumors are attacked for being... unfounded. And when a source is asked for, there is no clear source.
There's a lot of people with willing gullibility, like all those who believed that the company was cancelling Walt or that Kennedy was about to be fired for the past decade. There were no credible sources for those rumors. Low level company employees don't count as sources. Iger doesn't invite them to C-Suite meetings. But people believe and repeat the unfounded rumor because they want it to be true.
It's a larger problem in our society, too.
Truthiness - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Journalists on every major news network will report "rumors" from government "sources" but MUST protect their sources at all cost. Remember 'Deep Throat" from Watergate? There are a trillion other examples in history.
YES!...people inside Burbank leak! But you can't snitch them out! Nobody want's to get fired!! I have friends in Orlando and Anaheim that tell me stuff I would NEVER publically rat them out on.
One of Journalism's biggest rules is PROTECT YOUR SOURCE. So....just because you see any rumor in life that does not have a source attatced to it that "you" deem as credible...does NOT mean it's automatically a lie.
Everybody's task in life is to take in information every single day and figure out weather it's true or false. That job is yours until the day you die. Just take in the rumor, process it and choose to believe it or not...or stick it in your "maybe" box.
Sort it the best "you" can....and THEN ALSO let others do that same thing or themselves.
Last edited:
