The wide world of anonymous sources - a discussion.

There's a big difference between anonymously-sourced fact and anonymously sourced conjecture/opinion.

BALL COACH 1: "Look, I can't say anything on the record, because Team X wants to announce it themselves. But we've agreed on a contract, and I just informed Team Y that I'm leaving to take the job."

BALL COACH 2: "Look, off the record? Our quarterback can barely spell his name. I wouldn't draft him."

I would argue that using BALL COACH 2 as an anonymous source is what does the most damage to our profession. It's unfair, plain and simple. An opinion only has journalistic value if it includes the context of the opinion-giver's identity. Otherwise, it is meaningless. In the pursuit of truth, an opinion from an unidentified person has as much value as an anonymous message board comment.

The minimum bar should be, "Is what I'm writing falsifiable information?" BALL COACH 1 is either leaving for Team X or he isn't. From there, it's a two-pronged issued: 1) Are you confident your source is telling you the truth? 2) Can you provide readers with enough identifying information about the source of your information that they believe it is true?

 

You're confusing the issues here. The conflicts and leaks and lies are in the White House.

Nobody intelligent has any confidence in Trump and his clown show administration at this point.

 

A good question. You answered it in your next comment. You vet the sources. If you
do it right, in my experience, you can usually tell if the information is coming from the same original source and whether it's legit.

 

To me, there's two issues at play here.

One, it speaks volumes about who Trump is as a guy that there are leaks all over the place. It speaks to how little loyalty he engenders with his behavior, that so many in his administration happily shit all over him all the time, every day - shit all over him and anyone viewed close to him. Trump's not a good guy. He's not a good president. A lot of the Obama administration actually liked him and wanted to stay in his good graces. The inartful Trump, whenever his tenure is over, can't do anything for these career politicos anyway, so fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Two, there comes a point where the media is running down Trump to run the guy, and anyone affiliated to him, down because they're taking the word of sources that are either fully prepared for a palace coup after the mid-terms (if a coup is needed) or want a life raft when the Trump storm finally ends and want the right people to know they were really on the side of angels.

And, in a sense, the second is the one that worries me more. Because a good reporter, sooner or later, has to shut off a source who's doing it not for the country's edification, but to shame a person said source willfully works for. I mean, for chrissakes, if he's that bad, quit!

Trump may only have one fascinating instinct to his repertoire, and it's the devil's sense for weakness: Whatever is rotten or fetid about a person or a place, Trump has the nose to find it. And so when he mentions the need to drain a swamp...he's not wrong! But he's surrounded by the swamp. He's employing the swamp. And the swamp is full of sources. And reporters use them happily because there is literally nothing to lose by using them. They won't lose an ounce of cool points pissing off Trump; they'll gain them.

 

I don't object to anything here. It's a tangled web.

But you have to call bullshit on YF whenever he posits that Trump and his lackeys have the higher moral ground.

 

Meanwhile, down in the swamp ...

 

Biggest leaker in this White House is the president himself.

Anonymous sources are, and always have been, a necessary evil.

 

I pay small-to-moderate attention to YF’s posts.