Caution on Anonymous Sources

 

Having long suspected this, I now firmly assert a new rule when it comes to consuming so-called news reports, regardless of which political camp may be issuing them. Ready? Here it is:Anonymous sources don’t exist. Period.How so? I just finished reading an editorial piece by a conservative-leaning author I thought I liked, only to find that her entire article hinged on a batch of smears against a political figure by unnamed sources. Not a single one of those sources displayed enough courage of conviction to go on the record and self-identify. Conclusion? Balderdash!By ContrastIn the days of yore, when Abe Rosenthal kept the N. Y. Times on an even keel by balancing mostly left-leaning reporters with a right-leaning editorial policy, Rosenthal would kill articles basing themselves solely on anonymous sources. In his view, citing an anonymous source was something to do only under rare, almost life-threatening circumstances, as when identifying a source would mean marking that source for impending assassination. Even then, he would insist on additional corroboration before backing any hit piece launched from the kind of anonymous source ambush that has become not a bug but a feature these days. Current SituationOh, how the mighty have fallen. Does the present inundation of anonymously sourced smears come even close to passing the smell test these days? For context, remember we dwell in the selfie generation where every modern mortal shows no hesitation in promulgating individual menu preferences or quality of bowel movements. Just how credible is it to find any opinion of a necessarily egotistical interviewee to uncork itself without attribution, unless the interviewee is spewing more subjective bile than supportable fact? The Stacking TacticGive me verifiable sources and facts, or spare me the attention-seeking defamation. The new trend to witness is a half-hearted effort to bolster credibility by stacking up one anonymous source after another. In other words, if a single anonymous may seem sketchy, the author behind a hit piece now elects to say that multiple other, equally unidentified sources said the same thing. Trouble is, none of these so-called “sources” ever emerges from the shadows. This kind of anonymous sourcing, once an invitation to hyperbole, has now become a hallmark of fabrication. No thanks, say I, even if I am inclined to agree with the sentiment being expressed by the author in question. If this kind of writing is not downright duplicitous, it is certainly sloppy. Balderdash, in other words.ConclusionIt’s much easier to arrive at the foregoing determination expeditiously if embracing the simple rule that anonymous sources are not just convenient, lazy, partisan, or suspect; anonymous sources don’t exist.And with that, my work here is done.