NY Daily News using anonymous sources

Major beat in major market. No different from the Globe's story on the Red Sox's collapse.
I encouraged this kind of reporting and told my guys to let me worry about trying to convince our bosses the sources are trustworthy, in position to know, and the topic is newsworthy.

 

You encouraged this type of reporting? Wow.

 

Yep yep.

 

[/quote]
We're in the business of eyeballs and buzz, and this story gets it. Period. And these aren't anonymous sources trying to take down a government official. It's professional, well-paid ballplayers who can't get along with other professional, well-paid ballplayers. I'd rather have names of course but I'm not losing sleep over this anonymous-heavy story.
[/quote]

+1

 

Have to agree with those who have said you don't get the honest story on this unless you let the guys speak anonymously. The writer was on ESPN today and said it is a pretty significant faction of the Jets who feel this way. And I have to agree that this is the way things are done in 2012. Check the AP wire and see how many news stories use the phrase "according to a person within the organization who did not want to be identified because the deal had not been finalized."

Having said that, I think anonymous sources need to be used sparingly. I am OK with it in this case, for the reasons cited above, and this is a pretty significant story in NY. But I hope that upper-level editors are know who the sources and/or trust the reporter that they are reliable.

 

The whole college conference realignment shows anonymous sources are full of crap or lying.

 

Touché.

 

First, it's important to recognize there are at least two types of anonymous sources one might use. This is not, as some have analogized this to, similar to using a source to tell you about an impending deal. Instead it's allowing cowards the cloak of anonymity to bash someone without putting their named behind it. The issue is not whether the source is lying*--it's just reporting players' opinions of Sanchez--but whether it's ethically appropriate to provide this forum for anonymous sniping. As someone else stated earlier in thread, I have less of a problem here than I would with, say, politics. After all, it's only sports.

Second, this is arguably part of the value beat writers add. They get to talk to players, coaches, etc. They spend time in lockerroom, at the practice field, etc. Certainly they can--and we should want them--to draw conclusions using the insights they gain from this. Fans can watch games and press conferences--beat writers need to tell them something they can see for themselves. If Mehta learned through his observation and interviews that many top players and officials questioned Sanchez's ability, why shouldn't he write about it? He's supposed to be the expert, right? That said, if Mehta has not really developed this thesis, his story is much more troubling.

 

Should go without saying that these stories go through many layers of editorial approval. I managed college and pro sports, but I still had to go through the SE, ME and EE. But it was critical that I knew as much as my reporters because I initially decided whether to go or stop, and I had to sell that decision to go. So I always knew the source, the situation, and I trusted my reporters' instincts to know when to push me to push those above us.
My guys joked with me that "I shouldn't even tell you this because you're going to want a story, but ...." We probably ran five stories like this. We probably wrote 50 drafts for other stories that never ran because the target or issue wasn't important enough, or the quotes were paraphrased as sourced information. So it is very selective.
This was great reporting. It all starts with the reporter having the sources' trust, and that ain't easy.

 

My rule of thumb: If you must use anonymous sources, do so only for facts (coach fired, player signs contract, Bumfuck U. is jumping conferences). Not opinions.