The wide world of anonymous sources - a discussion.

I guess that is the ultimate question. I think it's an old-school mentality. A lot of these guys that I've run into are in their 50s and 60s and it's one of the situations where they probably think, "Well this is the way it's always been. We scouts never give our names to be quoted in a story because we don't want any trouble with the parent club."

 

In most instances, scouts aren't allowed to talk on the record, at the risk of being fired by their teams. Or, they are paranoid they are going to be fired.

Here's one from the NBA: The collective bargaining agreement forbids anyone -- even the player, I think -- from releasing contract info. So anyone who gives you this information is in violation of the CBA. Yet that info gets out all the time. From anonymous sources.

I hate 'em too. Hate 'em. The two-source rule is definitely a good one (unless your single source is The Source -- the player, a parent or an agent). But sometimes I think you have to use them. Just make sure it's worth it, and your ass is covered.

Also, our paper has a policy that I think is a good one: We won't quote an anonymous source. We can use them for info. "Joe Blow will forgo his senior season and enter the NBA draft," two sources close to the Bumblefuck Tech program said." But we're not going to actually quote someone who doesn't have the balls to put their name behind what they say.

 

How often do you use them?
"When the anonymous source is the subject of the story and is just trying to cover his bases. About 2-4 times per year."

What for?
Breaking news. Coaching searches, tranfers, etc.

And why?
Because it's either that, or don't report anything. And you know the competition is going to use the anonymous sources.

When you do, what wording do you like to use?
"A source told The City Newspaper"

Do you encourage sources to go on the record, do you ask all sources to go on the record or simply assume they won't? I always start by asking the question straight up, the guy will deny, and I'll say something like, "OK, off the record, is this true?"

Ever been burned by it?
Not yet (knocking on wood)

Do you see it become more prevalent? Less prevalent?
I don't see its prevalence changing all that much. There are certain kinds of stories that are always going to require it, but I think most people hate having to do it.

Do readers ever ask you about them?
Readers don't care, as long as it turns out to be true.

What, to you, is an appropriate time to use them? Coaching search? Personnel matter? When the info poses a threat to others? When it's time to scoop the competitors?
Any time there is absolutely no question about the story's truth, there's no way anybody's going on record with it and you know your competition is hot on the trail.

Without naming names, what kinds of people are, most often, your sources? Athletic department types? A front office employee? A parent? Assistant coaches and parents, mostly. The occasional well-connected community type, though I'd never cite them as an unnamed source.

Do anonymous sources frustrate you? Help you out? Are they a necessary evil or a crutch?
Necessary evil, at least the way they're used in my neck of the woods.

If you're a writer, what standards do you have in place for their use? If you're an editor…has the use of an anonymous source ever smelled like a lie?
I don't really have a policy, other than I have to know 100 percent that what the source says is true, which usually means getting it straight from the subject's mouth.

 

yeah, I don't know how to handle that. Because if The Source tells you he's about to get fired, you know it's true. So, to me, you have the responsibility to get that info to the public.

But, yeah, I wouldn't know how to handle that situation without lying.

 

All you have to do is not write the sentence that says, "Dude was unavailable for comment." Either that, or say, "Dude would not (or has not) commented publicly."

Don't go out of your way to make it difficult. As long as the story is true, nobody will ever question you on the source.

 

My paper prohibits anonymous sources. Period.

I actually thought it was a chain-wide prohibition... but we get stories off the wire with "sources said" in them. Sometimes we've run 'em, more often we don't.

I understand the rule, but I hate getting burned on nearly every bit of breaking news on my beat -- because the local coach is paranoid about leaks. The former general manager used to spread rumors to find reporters' sources. I've worked harder to get information on the record with attribution, but the inability to use anything else makes the job much more frustrating.

 

Having received this answer, I would hope this reporter would never use this source again, and that other reporters would consider the motivations of their sources.

The source frankly states that he/she is using reporters to frame co-workers and to throw suspicion off of himself/herself.

 

My current shop's rule is that anonymous sources are banned in local stories and to be used as infrequently as possible in wire stories.

Another employer banned them unless the managing editor granted permission.

The place I worked for the longest supposedly banned them, but the "rule" was broken all the time in sports. And it was a joke on certain beats because it wasn't too difficult to figure out the source (for instance, on the Dolphins beat in the '90s, the majority of the "according to a source" information probably came from Drew Rosenhaus, who represented about half the team).

I also recall Jimmy Johnson cutting one of his starting offensive linemen supposedly because he was a frequent source of leaks.

 

This about sums it up for me. MUST have two. No question about it. We aren't allowed to use them except in extreme circumstances, and even then we have to get them approved by editors.

In a recent case, I had two sources tell me something that would have led to a nice breaking news story. But because neither would go on the record, and couldn't provide a legit reason for not doing so, we didn't report it. A few days later, a local TV station reported the news we had, using anonymous sources, yet later had to backtrack because the information was only partially true. It's worth it to not report the news, if you can do it later and get it right. That is lost in today's journalism.

 

My shop used to have the hard-and-fast "no anonymous sources" rule. We were not allowed to break college coaching hires, for instance, with anonymous sources. However, we could cite other reports which cited anonymous sources on the same hires.

To me, that's ridiculous. Either you trust your own reporters who have been embedded on the beat for years, or you don't, at which point, why are they on the beat? (Under new management the policy eventually changed, though now we don't really have standards for anything.)

At the same time, I dabbled in "per a source" or "the bumblefuck news has learned" on smaller things -- recruiting, lower-level hires, etc. But after some close calls I decided on my own that was a slippery slope I wasn't prepared to die on.

If I'm told by an assistant coach that they received a commitment from a player, I'm confirming that with the player before writing anything. Will that potentially put me behind the competition tweeting "per a source?" Sure. Life isn't always easy.