Anonymous Sources

[mongers]

What is Languish, but a large collection of anonymous sources?

Says who?

Says me. 

[alfred russel]

Well the specific case is members of Congress who allegedly don't want to identify themselves as crypto anti Trumpites for fear of murder or assault.  So to expect them to volunteer their names seems unrealistic.

So that requires complete double anonymity? Both the rep and the source need to stay anonymous?

If the report was, "We talked to a rep who said he would vote for impeachment, but was voting otherwise due to fear of murder or assault" - cool.

If the report was "We talked to a republican staffer who said congressman jimmy johnson would vote for impeachment, but won't because of fear of murder or assault"...also cool.

If the report was "We talked to a republican staffer joe green who said there were representatives that would vote for impeachment, but won't because of fear of murder or assault"...much more reasonable.

[The Brain]

If people that vote based on fear for their lives aren't named and shamed, how can they be impeached? This kind of dereliction of duty has to be dealt with. Harshly.

And like I said, it seems really weird that you would tell another soul that you goofed up like this. If there actually exists someone who claims to have voted based on fear I doubt that they are telling the truth. This whole business smells.

[Razgovory]

What is Languish, but a large collection of anonymous sources?

We aren't anonymous, I know who all you people are.

To prove it, here is a photo of Grumbler

[grumbler]

I never thought Languish would sink to doxing. 

[Sheilbh]

 

[The Minsky Moment]

Well the specific case is members of Congress who allegedly don't want to identify themselves as crypto anti Trumpites for fear of murder or assault.  So to expect them to volunteer their names seems unrealistic.

So that requires complete double anonymity? Both the rep and the source need to stay anonymous? 

If the source is the rep, then obviously yes.

If the source is someone close to the rep — like a staffer — then revealing that name would make it to trivial to ID the rep and potentially put the staffer at risk.

Such are the problems that arise when domestic terrorists are allowed to run amok.

[alfred russel]

If the source is the rep, then obviously yes.

If the source is the rep, then identify that the source is a rep and I have no problem with the source remaining anonymous.

If the source is someone close to the rep — like a staffer — then revealing that name would make it to trivial to ID the rep and potentially put the staffer at risk.

Such are the problems that arise when domestic terrorists are allowed to run amok.

I don't buy this at all.

A Congressperson being cowed into a subservient role to the executive branch is a major news story and a failure of the Congressperson to live up to his/her oath of office. There is a compelling public interest to know the identity of such people, so they can be voted out of office if they do not resign. I completely understand why you need to give anonymity to a Congressperson in such a situation if they come forward and share this with a reporter: while they may be failing to do their job, but obviously they wouldn't come forward otherwise. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Second, the report indicated that there were multiple members of congress that were cowed by fear into voting not to impeach. So while the source could be a staffer on a particular congressperson's team, and identifying the staffer could implicate his/her congressperson, it obviously goes beyond that.

Third, you could at the very minimum explain more details as to the source. For example, "we are not revealing the source because it is a member of one of the Congressperson's team and would only talk to us on condition of anonymity, to avoid harm coming to that Congressperson." That would at least be somewhat logical. But for all we know this was a Republican who supported impeachment: which would place the story in an entirely different context. If Lynn Cheney was the source, for example, perhaps she was just trying to make herself appear to be a heroic figure.

[Admiral Yi]

What would be Liz Cheney's motivation to say anonymously that she has received death threats?

[alfred russel]

What would be Liz Cheney's motivation to say anonymously that she has received death threats?

For the members voting to impeach, it certainly makes them seem to be on the courageous side, doesn't it?

I'm really not trying to go down a rabbit hole of this single episode. In general I think anonymous sources get overused, and I started to pick up a tweet from Maggie Haberman to kick off this topic, grumbler gave some push back on it being a tweet not really journalism (which is really a separate topic), this story was at hand, so I went with this one.

[Admiral Yi]

For the members voting to impeach, it certainly makes them seem to be on the courageous side, doesn't it?

Sure, if Liz stood up at a microphone and said "I've received death threats," she would sound courageous.

What does she gain by doing it anonymously?

[The Minsky Moment]

We know for a fact that GOP representatives who voted for impeachment have received various serious threats because Meijer went public with that fact and also mentioned he has personal security measures with others.

I agree his stance is courageous and better than those who will not go public but I understand why others might choose to be more careful.

It is also understandable that reporters do not always disclose even the more general description of the source given that the source may not have given the reporter permission to do so and the kinds of mole hunts that have gone in in recent years chasing leaks.

[alfred russel]

Maybe the reporter had a very plugged in source -- possibly even a rep confessing -- maybe she didn't. You have more than a thousand capitol hill republicans and a couple hundred reps: a story that a republican source on capital hill says that some congresspeople are voting a certain way out of fear could be completely accurate and at the same time completely meaningless (she could have just found someone stating their guess of what was happening, or providing spin for their own advantage).

If you aren't able/willing to give the viewer a bit more context, the reference to a "source" is pointless.

If Fox News wanders over to Capitol Hill and puts out a story with the exact same type of sourcing, but stating that "republicans voting against impeachment were voting out of conviction - with the exception of the 10 voting for impeachment, the caucus was against it" - would that be meaningful? I'd certainly say not.

[Jacob]

Have you ever talked to a reporter AR?

Typically, if it's a friendly interview, you discuss what can and cannot be disclosed to the public before you talk, including to what degree you're willing to be identified. You make clear what's on the record and what's off the record. Those decisions are all made by the person talking to the reporter. Any reporter who does not abide by the limits set by their sources will soon be out of sources (and possibly run into ethics complaints).

Whether you think the anonymous sources quoted by a reporter are credible or not is up to you, and should ideally be informed by your knowledge of that reporter's record.

If you don't trust many - or any - of them that's your issue, not an issue with the system. And if you think the information being shared is pointless, that's your business. Others clearly do not.

[alfred russel]

Have you ever talked to a reporter AR?

Nope.

I don't think reporters should be treated like priests where you accept their statements without any corroborative details. If you want to do that, cool -- but I'm more of a skeptic.

In this specific case, the reporter's description could be from a very well places source and highly meaningful, or it could be equally factual and yet meaningless. It leaves the impression that there are republican congresspeople that wanted to vote for impeachment but were intimidated not to: it is an impression that may one day be proven but is impossible to ever disprove.

What do you call something that can never be disproven?

My point of view is that if all you can say is that some anonymous republican on the hill told you that some congressman is being motivated by xyz, you don't have a story. Shame on anyone that takes it seriously enough to discuss, unless they are discussing your shitty reporting standards in which case it is worth many pages of commentary.