Anonymous sources

My issue isn't with anonymous sources. It's on all the people who get it wrong and ruin it for everybody. Now, when I hear an anonymously sourced story, I just think that it means there's a 50 percent chance it will come to fruition. And I'm in the business. I can't imagine what readers think by now.

 

I'd rather have credibility than be first.

Ask sports fans if they believe it when ESPN breaks a trade based on "sources say" for their team. At the playoff deadline, I see most fans upset when the trade they want is broken that way, because they assume that means it won't happen.

 

Regarding the board (and boards in general):

We're having this discussion in several other places, most notably a snark (semi-sarcastic observations) list I moderate.

My opinion (and that's what it is) is that I feel strongly that a poster should be associated with a consistent name. In many places, that name leads back to a person. Here, for the purposes of the board, it sometimes does not. Understood.

Now I don't know the person attached to the name "GlenQuagmire," but I am familiar with his posting style and his opinions. (I chose you as a compliment, big guy).

Now, maybe he or someone else has something they absolutely *need* to post that they don't want tracked back to them, so he uses what some call a "sockpuppet," basically an anonymous account.

Here's the deal for me: If it comes between having to use an anonymous account or not posting the comment, I am not gonna post the comment.

That's just my personal philosophy.

That said, with anonymous sources, I find it really hard to valdiate using them.

 

I am among those who are very skeptical of the use of anonymous sources. I need to have more than one on any given topic to feel comfortable using them.

But if you have been on a major beat for more than, say, five years ... and have never used anonymous sources to break news ... you're doing it wrong.

There are certain subjects (player movements for one) in which people are never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to go on the record.

If you throw your hands up and go, "Oh well!" -- you are doing your readers a disservice.

 

I think Richard Nixon said the same thing.

 

I must say, what's missing in this thread is an understanding of the INCREDIBLE amount of pressure on beat writers covering the major sports in particular (me!). If you play everything by the book, you'll be humiliated. I just feel like that's what it's come to.

I'm not suggesting there's not intense competition at the prep level and such. But the stakes are a lot higher when you're talking about matters concerning a multi-billion dollar enterprise like the NFL, making people very reluctant to go on the record.

I never cease to be amazed at the sort of strong reactions some of my stories have gotten behind closed doors in the front office. I have heard after the fact from people I trust. There are people dissecting every word you write, and you better believe your sources know that and don't want any part of the inevitable backlash/fallout.

I believe there should be guidelines and your editors should know who the info is coming from. I also don't like sources being quoted anonymously talking about others. But it's tough to condemn the use of anonymous sources in general when the alternative is to stand by and watch your competition crush you.

 

A TV station in my market reported that Dale Earnhardt Jr. was going to sign with Hendrick. Not exactly Dewey Defeats Truman, but still pretty bad. Of course, it was based on an anonymous source.

I have used anonynous sources three times in a 14-year career, two on the news side and one in sports. In all three cases, they were multiple sources.

 

I've found that editors nowadays want you to use these sources to break the news or like you said, you'll be crushed and they'll crush you.

 

When everyone in town starts saying "I heard it on TV, but who knows if it's true until the Crapsville Times publishes it," are you really being crushed?

 

To answer for him - yes. It doesn't only count when you get beat by another print publication. Beat is beat. "Everyone in town" is a pretty big generalization. I've seen beat writers beaten into irrelevance by dismissing, one too many times, a competing outlet .

 

Well, it's just that simple, isn't it chief?