1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Anonymous sources

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Sneed, Apr 30, 2009.

  1. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

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

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Your instincts are correct.
     
  3. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

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

    jambalaya Member

    Many do unfortunately.
     
  5. Fredrick

    Fredrick Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  6. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  7. GlenQuagmire

    GlenQuagmire Active Member

    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.
     
  8. jambalaya

    jambalaya Member

    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.
     
  9. Sneed

    Sneed Guest

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

    Some Guy Active Member

    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.
     
  11. bigbadeagle

    bigbadeagle Member

    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 shit 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?
     
  12. Fredrick

    Fredrick Well-Known Member

    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 fucking day.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page