The wide world of anonymous sources - a discussion.

[Human_Paraquat]

This about sums it up for me. MUST have two. No question about it. We aren't allowed to use them except in extreme circumstances, and even then we have to get them approved by editors.

In a recent case, I had two sources tell me something that would have led to a nice breaking news story. But because neither would go on the record, and couldn't provide a legit reason for not doing so, we didn't report it. A few days later, a local TV station reported the news we had, yet later had to backtrack because the information was only partially true. It's worth it to not report the news, if you get it right. That is lost in today's journalism.

heck, two is a good policy even when info's on the record.

Was once in a small gaggle where a player told us something I was 99 percent sure was not accurate. While my competition reported it on Twitter, I tried like heck to get someone, anyone, to confirm it. I couldn't, and didn't report it, and also didn't have to backtrack a day later like my competitor did.

 

[MisterCreosote]

I've been steadfastly against anonymous sources for a long time now, but I also don't see how you can cover a White House like this one without them.

 

[Human_Paraquat]

I understand the rule, but I hate getting burned on nearly every bit of breaking news on my beat -- because the local coach is paranoid about leaks. The former general manager used to spread rumors to find reporters' sources. I've worked harder to get information on the record with attribution, but the inability to use anything else makes the job much more frustrating.

I think everyone can sympathize with this, especially if that policy applies to the use of multiple sources.

At the same time, I know of more than one veteran, well-respected reporter/columnist whose reputation in certain fanbases is forever tainted because they used a single unnamed source who turned out to be wrong. I'd argue it's easier to catch up on getting beat on something by a few minutes than it is to repair one's credibility.

 

[Tweener]

I'd argue it's easier to catch up on getting beat on something by a few minutes than it is to repair one's credibility.

Sadly, there are some who disagree with this. There are a lot of ambitious, often young, reporters who either don't understand that credibility is king, or simply don't care. It's usually the same ones who steal your reporting without giving proper attribution.

 

[Slacker]

The source frankly states that he/she is using reporters to frame co-workers and to throw suspicion off of himself/herself.

The best people. All the best people.

 

[YankeeFan]

This about sums it up for me. MUST have two. No question about it. We aren't allowed to use them except in extreme circumstances, and even then we have to get them approved by editors.

In a recent case, I had two sources tell me something that would have led to a nice breaking news story. But because neither would go on the record, and couldn't provide a legit reason for not doing so, we didn't report it. A few days later, a local TV station reported the news we had, using anonymous sources, yet later had to backtrack because the information was only partially true. It's worth it to not report the news, if you can do it later and get it right. That is lost in today's journalism.

How can you be sure your two sources didn't both get their information from the same source (or one from the other) as opposed to having it independently.

 

[YankeeFan]

I've been steadfastly against anonymous sources for a long time now, but I also don't see how you can cover a White House like this one without them.

Sure, but one "prolific" leaker admits that he/she has an agenda, that includes framing co-workers, and throwing attention off of him/her, how can we trust anything any anonymous source says.

Reporters are supposed to vet anonymous sources, and their potential conflicts and motivations. I have no confidence this is being done.

 

[tapintoamerica]

A couple years ago, I interviewed at a paper for a major beat. I was asked by the EIC what my philosophy was regarding anonymous sourcing. I said that it is dependent on the story. If a person had solid information about the program's men's hoops coach leaving to take a NBA job, then yeah, I can see using it. But if it's something minuscule, like a player winning Good Guy of the Year, then it's a waste.

The EIC listened, then said that the paper does not believe in anonymous sourcing. If the reporter can't get a person to go on the record, then they're not going to use the information.

And that was almost certainly a lie.
Every few months , every paper at which I worked would climb the moral high horse and proclaim, "We don't use anonymous sources." The edict would be conveniently ignored as soon as the next big story loomed.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Sure, but one "prolific" leaker admits that he/she has an agenda, that includes framing co-workers, and throwing attention off of him/her, how can we trust anything any anonymous source says.

Reporters are supposed to vet anonymous sources, and their potential conflicts and motivations. I have no confidence this is being done.

This is where the independent confirmation rule has to be enforced.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Also not to be trusted and they hide behind that "can't use my name" shirt.

Let's say they think Prince of Persia is a great prospect but they're shaky about that Mike311 guy. They'll tell you: "Man, we love that Mike311. A five-tool guy, for sure. I only hope he's there when we pick."

They're thinking some other scout is going to see that and go, hmmm, maybe we ought to check out this Mike 311. Well, you'd think the other scouts are smarter than that but who knows?

Still, a scout's motive is NOT to be trusted.

The biggest month for atrocious journalism in America is April. NFL personnel execs lie to draft media daily. Draft media run with it, selecting the certainty of clicks over the mental strain of confronting the likelihood that the anonymous claims are bogus and are designed to impact the draft for leaking team's benefit.

 

[Alma]

I've been steadfastly against anonymous sources for a long time now, but I also don't see how you can cover a White House like this one without them.

You'd report less and be more discerning about what you do report.

It is further my belief that, when Obama was in charge, many reporters did just that because it was Obama.

 

[Dog8Cats]

We also had a policy I liked, but it did make things more difficult.
We weren't allowed to use the subject of the story as a source and then quote him or say he wasn't available.

Some Guy's contract will be extended by three years and he'll get a $200,000 annual raise, sources told the SJ Journal.
Guy has been head coach at Bumfork U for three years and led the Blumpkins to the NCAA tournament in three of them.
Guy was not available for comment but sources said ***

ZAPPPP. He WAS available. He told you. So you lie if you say he wasn't. Guy can't be a source in this one.

Or a firing, where the AD tells you as a source it is good and then you quote the AD as saying no comment. Bullshirt. He did comment.

That's a very sound policy, one which I wish the daily I last worked at adhered to. I don't think most readers are parsing the butt-covering that reporters do when using anonymous sources to unwind the fact that the anonymous source could very well be the subject of the story, who just won't talk on the record.

What do yawl think about the technique of someone (almost always a columnist) writing something such as, "And then there was the fan in the second deck who said this possession will make or break Johnny Quarterback's legacy in Local Town."

A columnist I know used to ride that rail again and again.