Anonymous Sources

[alfred russel]

I will die on this hill.

My complaint about the excessive use of anonymous sources is general, but the specific case here is the CNN reporter who cited a republican source and that members " want to vote to impeach but they legitimately fear for their lives and their families' lives."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-trump-impeachment-vote-01-13-21/h_4fbc3126e600a45947bbd3fbd061deda

The AP has a guide of when it is okay to use anonymous sources:

When is it OK to use anonymous sources?

To strengthen the trust of our audiences around the world and to meet our own values, we long ago set tough rules on attribution and on the use of anonymous sources.

No one wants news that's built on unnamed, unaccountable sources and facts seemingly pulled from the air. Politicians and members of the public sometimes have cited such journalism as a reason for the fall in trust in the media. A poll in May by the AP-supported Media Insight Project was bleak: only 17 percent of Americans now judge the "news media" as very accurate.

Reporting with loose attribution or anonymous sourcing can be dismissed as fake by the skeptical reader or politician. On the other hand, a report filled with verifiable facts attributed to named and authoritative sources of information is impossible to dispute.

Our standard is that AP news reports must attribute any disputable facts that were not witnessed, gathered or confirmed on our own. In other words, if the information is secondhand — somebody told us something — the information should be attributed to named sources in our stories. Being transparent about precisely where the facts or views contained in our report come from is one of the strongest ways to build and maintain trust in AP's journalism.

Attribution should come just before or just after the first reference to the information that is used — in the same sentence.

If in subsequent paragraphs we provide more details from the same source, we should restate the attribution unless it is perfectly clear from the context that we are referring to the previously cited source for the information.

On Anonymous Sources

In a perfect world, all information in the AP report would be attributed to named, on-the-record sources who could be held accountable for the accuracy of their information.

At times, however, there may be a need to use anonymously attributed information in order to tell an important story. This is allowed by AP in carefully defined circumstances: if the information is from a credible source with direct knowledge; if it brings to light important facts that otherwise would remain in the shadows; and if the information can be obtained no other way.

Valuable news often originates from whistleblowers who would be in danger of losing their jobs, or in some countries their freedom or their lives, if the information was traced back to them. News of official abuses, human rights violations, war crimes or environmental dereliction are some of the areas where anonymous sourcing has broken a story wide open — think Watergate or Abu Ghraib. In cases such as these, with the approval of managers, the AP may grant anonymity to the whistleblower, in text withholding the name and in video and photos showing them from behind or in silhouette.

In addition, for anonymously sourced material, the AP routinely requires extra corroboration in the form of more than one independent source. And managers need to approve any use of anonymous material.

At the same time, there is a lesser variety of anonymity that has become all too common. Sometimes, paid spokespeople find it inconvenient to allow their names to be used even for official information. In some parts of the world, it is against rules or custom for spokespeople to be identified by name. Wherever possible, AP journalists are urged to push back against such requests for anonymity, pressing for permission to use the name or bypassing the information if necessary.

Journalists themselves can help to resist the contagion of anonymity by avoiding such tropes as citing unnamed "diplomats" or "analysts" for facts or views that are widely prevalent and could be obtained easily enough elsewhere. Another poor practice is quoting from social media posts in which the real identity of the poster is unknown. (Just say no, no matter how pithy or amusing the tweet.) Both these practices are banned under our standards.

The bar against anonymous comment is set high at AP. When the AP does agree to use anonymous material, reporters must have a good reason. We should provide as specific as possible a description of the source to establish his or her credibility (for example, "according to top White House aides" or "a senior official in the agency directly involved in the discussions") and, when relevant, describe the source's motive for disclosing the information. If a story hinges on leaked documents, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.

AP's Statement of News Values and Principles lays out the rules. Anonymous material may be used only if:

The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.
The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.

https://blog.ap.org/behind-the-news/when-is-it-ok-to-use-anonymous-sources

In this case, we have an anonymous Republican source describing the motivations of multiple anonymous Republican congressmen.

If a politician stands up on live TV and says, "The reason I support this policy is because of my belief in xyz" I take that with a grain of salt. I'm getting the information firsthand but politicians are notorious for telling people what they want to hear.

So in this case, we apparently have politicians telling someone else working in politics something, who conveys it to us through a reporter. The reporter of course is dependent on her reputation for integrity, but also has a business need to drive clicks and views.

At a minimum, if this story was to be reported, it should have the congressmen who wanted to vote to impeach but were too scared named in the article.

Thats all I have to say about that. 

[PDH]

Thats all I have to say about that.

This is a blatant lie.

[mongers]

I will die on this hill.
.....

Thats all I have to say about that.

AR, would you trust an anonymous source to tell you there was a route, unmonitored by authorities, that lead to a good rock climbing site?

[Sheilbh]

I think it should be up to the journalist, but I think they should ask themselves the following questions (largely by Alex Hern):
    Has this source been contradicted on the record before?
    Does this source have a history of accurately stating the future actions of the executive/MP/regulator etc?
    Would this source refuse to speak if you refused to grant them anonymity?
    Is the quote from this source worth granting anonymity?

Anonymous sources are really useful in informing the public what politicians/other leaders are really thinking/the fights going on in the background - I've really no issue with them. But they can also be misused for spin purposes or just used for no good reason so I think should be handled critically by journalists which is why I think those questions are helpful.

For example, that clip of Mark Meadows giving basically a fairly standard, quite bland White House statement anonymously, is in my view an abuse of it because that statement has value coming from the White House Chief of Staff - it's meaningless and anodyne coming from an anonymous source. So there's no point except providing him with deniability - you're not getting additional information that is of value to the public. Similarly I don't see the value in Robert Peston getting an anonymous briefing from Dominic Cummings of new lockdown measures half an hour before they're announced, I don't think there's much value in reporting that.

Flipside is, for me the Blair years, there were loads of anonymous briefings from cabinet ministers and members of their team about the rift between Blair and Brown. At the time I thought it was just tittle-tattle and not really that important. Since then numerous people have published their diaries or memoirs and the rift was worse than was being reported through the anonymous sources and it was affecting the way government functioned. That's really important to know.

Similarly I think anonymous sources such as civil servants or other non-political actors often have information that's important for the public to know and it's the only way I can see certain types of national security issues being reported and I think that's important, rather than just drawing a veil on it behind the standard "the government never comments on intelligence issues" response.

[The Brain]

If enough people changed their names to be identical this problem would be solved.

[crazy canuck]

AF's lack of understanding of how journalism works provides at least some explanation of how Trumpism can exist assuming the same sort of ignorance (willful or otherwise) exists throughout the Trumpist base. 

[Habbaku]

I will hold opinions until one of our actual (or former) journalists explains what's wrong with AR's view.

[Josquius]

At a minimum, if this story was to be reported, it should have the congressmen who wanted to vote to impeach but were too scared named in the article.

[crazy canuck]

I will hold opinions until one of our actual (or former) journalists explains what's wrong with AR's view.

Serious question. Do they not teach this stuff in US civics classes.

[alfred russel]

I will die on this hill.
.....

Thats all I have to say about that.

AR, would you trust an anonymous source to tell you there was a route, unmonitored by authorities, that lead to a good rock climbing site?

There is literally a website with hundreds of thousands of such routes, that I consult all the time. And it is riddled with inaccuracies.

[alfred russel]

At a minimum, if this story was to be reported, it should have the congressmen who wanted to vote to impeach but were too scared named in the article.

Please explain.

[alfred russel]

Thats all I have to say about that.

This is a blatant lie.

It absolutely is. The incentives for being truthful really are reduced when you can say stuff anonymously.

[alfred russel]

AF's lack of understanding of how journalism works provides at least some explanation of how Trumpism can exist assuming the same sort of ignorance (willful or otherwise) exists throughout the Trumpist base.

Do you agree with the standards in the opening post describing the AP's use of anonymous sources?

[PDH]

I was commenting on your promise to not say any more.

[crazy canuck]

The explanation has been given multiple times in other threads when you brought up the same point.

New data point for Troll farm participant.  AF, Dorsey, Sergei or whatever you call yourself in other forums.