NY Daily News using anonymous sources

This story would have run in the Daily News in 1985, too.

 

i'm among those who are in this camp, as noted. sadly, today's meia seems to have lowered its standards regarding how to CAREFULLY weigh which stories need this ort of treatmnt and -- just as importantly -- who the reporters are who merit being giveen the okay to write these pieces. i'm big on the credibility of the reporter; younger, less experienced, over-eager types are too apt to buy every nugget players 'divulge' to them. unfortunately, fewer and fewer readers seem to give a spit about the byline and which ones to trust. but it was a classic, 'sexy' n.y. tabloid sort of deal. i just wish i was left more convinced that this wasn't a case of a couple of malcontents all too happy to play the blame game and that these sentiments represented more of a consensus in the locker room and/or coaching staff/front office.

when folks put their names on their quotes it matters not who is reporting them. on these sort of pieces readers are being told the reporter's judgment should be trusted as well as the depiction of how far-reaching the sentiment is. for readers who aren't at all discerning and fall into 'believe everything you read' category. as i've said, the reporter in this case hasn't yet convinced me i should buy what he's selling; not bashing manish here, simply saying that this is the sort of cynicism these pieces are bound to receive if the reporter has yet to convinced me that his judgment and ethics are beyond reproach.

 

Interesting question.

Is a reader supposed to put his faith in the paper? Or in the individual reporter?

 

The return of yellow journalism.

 

I don't see how anybody can say this is "good journalism." That statement just angers me.

 

It's good journalism in 2012 if you trust your reporter, you trust that his sources are good and if the use of anonymous sources is important to a relevant story.

I'm sorry if this angers you, and it would have angered me too -- in 1987. Now, it's part of the reality of our business.

This isn't happy progress, it just is. If you want to put out your publication without using any anonymous sources, feel free, but you'll be at a competitive disadvantage.

So you either A) accept that or B) accept some use of anonymous sources to stay in the competitive mix or C) switch to another business.

I get no particularly joy out of saying this.

 

"return"?

 

I worked with several reporters who weren't good enough to get far enough inside to get this kind of story.
This was not as easy get. Can't stress that enough. Develop your sources.

 

Where does Mehta assert he meant to represent a broader consensus about what the Jets think of Sanchez? The story itself makes clear it is about the players Mehta spoke to bashing Sanchez--the headlines and such may blow it up, but from its text, it doesn't really go any further than, as you say, pointing out some malcontents are playing the blame game. Unless you think players would lie to Mehta about whether they'd prefer to Manning to Sanchez, credibility doesn't really seem to be a concern. There are no "nuggets" divulged--it's all opinion. It's not sources telling Mehta how others feel--it's what they themselves do. If there's a concern, it's that it's inappropriate to let them cowardly attack Sanchez without putting their name to it, not that it's unreliable. In fact, anonymity makes most people more honest about their opinion, I'd imagine.

And I disagree completely with your comment that as long as people are quoted it doesn't matter who is quoting them. I still need to trust the writer is quoting people that know what they're talking about. People say dumb and incorrect information on the record, too. The writer is not absolved from responsibility because he was just passing it along--those that frequently pass along that sort of information are writers I won't trust.

And for all of you lamenting the good old days, anonymous sources were used back then, too. And stories in even the best of publications are filled with all sorts of information that is, technically, anonymous. Reporters gather background information they don't attribute to anyone, even if they clearly received it from a source.

 

Bullshit. It's a nothing story. There are guys who don't like the quarterback. Big deal. Show me a team where everyone is on the same page.
If a guy can't stand behind his accusation, it means nothing.
And to not go on a tangent but one reason for the names here is because guys are afraid to use their real names. The repercussion could be costly.