The wide world of anonymous sources - a discussion.

Hell, 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 hell 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

The best people. All the best people.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.