Anonymous sources

[mustangj17]

This is why newspapers don't use anonymous sources. How many times has ESPN been wrong?

 

[cranberry]

Ever since Ed Werder quoted 3 anonymous Dallas Cowboys ripping Terrell Owens a year or so ago, I've been intrigued by the concept.

The latest case arises in Selena Roberts's upcoming book about Alex Rodriguez. Link to the Yahoo! story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_a_rod_book

So what is the rule on anonymous sources?

It makes me feel like anyone could just make anything up and then say the source was anonymous.

Your instincts are correct.

 

[Stitch]

This is why newspapers don't use anonymous sources. How many times has ESPN been wrong?

Except the New York Times for practically every news story that deals with diplomacy or public policy.

 

[jambalaya]

This is why newspapers don't use anonymous sources. How many times has ESPN been wrong?

Many do unfortunately.

 

[Fredrick]

Every major story on ESPN.com, CBSsportsline.com, Foxsports.com break with the use of anonymous sources. Newspapers follow immediately not wanting to get beat on the story. It's all sad, really.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Every newspaper claims to have a ban on anonymous sources, but if you look hard enough, you'll find that most of them break their "rule" at least occasionally. Such a ban is just too big of an impediment to news-gathering.

 

[GlenQuagmire]

was always taught that, if someone believes in something enough, they'll almost always go on record if they're pushed/worked in the right way. sometimes not, and if what they have is absolutely necessary, it might be okay to use them as an anonymous source, but you've gotta figure out each instance on its own merits.

In covering a college beat, sometimes you can get news from coaches, players, team managers, boosters and former players who could suffer big backlash or even get in trouble if people knew the information from them. In some cases, they technically cannot say anything or they'll get in trouble.

I do not use anonymous sources unless absolutely needed. If I have, I make sure I have multiple sources confirm the report. Sometimes coaches and administration will say things under the condition of not being quoted. It's about finding people you can trust and developing a track record with over time. I think whether you go forward depends on how trusted those sources are.

On really controversal issues, I'll lead with sources being unwilling to comment and then follow with what the sources are saying.

In all cases, people were willing to go on the record after we broke the news first. Sometimes people are just afraid of being the first person to spill the beans.

 

[jambalaya]

Every newspaper claims to have a ban on anonymous sources, but if you look hard enough, you'll find that most of them break their "rule" at least occasionally. Such a ban is just too big of an impediment to news-gathering.

This is completely true. In fact, I had a big breaking story that no one would confirm on the record. My shop, the one with the aforementioned policy, allowed it to run because three separate sources confirmed it. Only until I had three. Why three and not two or four? You'd have to inquire into the consciousness of my executive editor for that answer. The story turned out to be 100 percent on the money, of course. So there you have it, we do have policies but we break them for the sake of juicy breaking news all the time.

 

[Sneed]

It makes it easier for ARod to just deny everything Selena wrote and that will be that.

This won't have the backlash that the failed test revelation had. Not even close.

Except Roberts will be laughing all the way to the bank. [/cliche]

 

[Some Guy]

My rule is you can use anonymous sources to gather information. "According to multiple sources, the Denver Nuggets have agreed to trade Allen Iverson to Detroit."

That's fine, if you really have multiple sources and you trust them.

I would never, ever, ever -- ever, ever, ever, ever, ever -- allow an anonymous source to be quoted. Especially if he wanted to rip someone.

You don't get to use me as cover to rip someone. You want to rip someone, you have to have the guts to go on the record. Period.

 

[bigbadeagle]

The only times I've used unnamed sources in a story is to confirm a coaching hire and then I've had two independent sources, albeit anonymous, to cross check the info I got. There may have been other times where I've used anonymous sources, but I can't recall them. At least, not until I'm under oath (and that may happen soon, goddamnit). And even then, they'll get nothing and like it.
My general principle is to use them if a person's livelihood or well-being may be at stake and there could be serious repercussions for them. Aside from that, I don't use them at all. Sometimes, the public has a hard time understanding that (thanks for pissing in our soup, TVs and movies and their "dramatic license" for showing people how it really isn't in our world). I'll get the "can't you use anonymous sources?" and I come back with the "uh, no, because it's our ass and our integrity on the line and who's to say I'm not just making shirt up and attributing it to 'anonymous sources'?"
Does the public believe we can make people talk, either anonymously or not for attribution, when in truth, we really have very little — if any — leverage legally, though we may have it on a moral and ethical level?

 

[Fredrick]

You guys must get beat on stories a lot then.
I see "sources say" this and that happened appeaing on ESPN and all the major Websites every forking day.