There are so many crazy things happening in the news industry these days I hardly know where to focus my efforts next. I decided, though, that I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to show you firsthand just how bad things are getting at some of our nation’s oldest and – until recently – most trusted news outlets.
A friend sent me this story, from the New York Times, last week. And then, that same day, I was scanning this top story / front page headline in the Wall Street Journal.
Yes, both stories are about the election and Donald Trump but that’s beside the point for the purposes of this blog. If you look closely you’ll see they both have something else in common, too.
They both rely almost exclusively on anonymous, or unnamed, sources.
And not just one or two unnamed sources – we’re talking a whopping 14 in the Wall Street Journal article and 11 in the New York Times piece. For two pretty short stories, that’s a LOT of unnamed sources. This is a MAJOR red flag that I want to help more and more news consumers recognize as a hallmark of bad journalism.
I’ll tell you more about why unnamed sources are so dangerous in a minute, but first I want you to see the stories for yourself, so I pasted screenshots of both, below. Then I underlined every unnamed source I found in each one.
(*In the New York Times piece, I also had fun circling one adjective that appears not once but THREE times throughout the piece – “baseless.” It’s so openly judgmental it actually made me laugh; but also, it’s a nice reminder that descriptive words have no place in hard news. They belong only in – you guessed it! - opinion)
#1 / New York Times:
(*note: I took these screenshots last week; the paper has altered the headline since then)
#2 / Wall Street Journal:
So, just to recap, between these two stories, we have seen just two named sources (both in the WSJ) … and 25 (!!!) unnamed sources.
Why am I making such a big deal about this? Because real journalists and trustworthy news sources use unnamed sources VERY SPARINGLY in important stories. Why? Because information is only really credible when it comes from someone who is willing to put their name out there.
Why else? Because knowing who a source actually IS gives you context about the person speaking in a quote, so you – the reader – can judge for yourself whether or not they are a reliable source of information. For instance – who do you think the person is in the Wall Street Journal piece who’s quoted as a “White House official?” Is he or she someone who works closely with the President every day or week? That’s certainly what the writers want you to believe.
But that title is so vague, it could describe any number of people in the White House: the head security guard at the front gate, the head housekeeper, the head intern – maybe even the head of the buildings and grounds crew. Which of these people is more likely to have a deep familiarity with the Presidents thoughts and behind-the scenes work? If the writer doesn’t identify the source of the quote by name and title, we can’t really say for sure if the information they shared is likely to be legitimate.
When reporters start over-using the anonymous source tactic, you have to start asking yourself questions, namely – what are they trying to hide? Unfortunately, oftentimes they are either rushing a story to print (or air) before it’s actually ready OR they are hiding the fact that they have no verified factual information and are trying to pass off opinions or speculation as “truth,” or fact. I’m not sure what the case is with these two stories, but the latter of these two reasons is a major side effect of what so many journalists do today, which is to try and force a story to fit a pre-determined narrative, instead of just letting the story tell itself.
But Lisa, you may be saying, some people are afraid to give their name if they say something controversial “on the record;” they have to be protected somehow. Why not let them be an “anonymous source?” True enough. But when you have a whole story made up entirely of unnamed sources, something’s gone horribly wrong in the reporting process. You have to ask yourself whether it’s an actual story yet or not. In reporter terms, it might just be a lead – something that needs to be fleshed out more before it’s presented to the public. Sort of like a cake that looks cooked on top but is still just raw batter inside.
I also have to say that, if we had an honest and competent newsmedia, I would be more likely to overlook a couple of anonymous sources here and there. But 14 in one article? And 11 in another? As I have painstakingly illustrated to you over the course of the past few months – our newsmedia is increasingly neither trustworthy nor competent. They are to be questioned, at all times.
Want a good example? There was a big exposé in late October / just before the election about an “Anonymous” person the New York Times had previously allowed to write an op-ed called “I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration” (this person also apparently wrote a book); the Times defended “Anonymous” as “a genuine high ranking official. A name most people who follow politics – and some who don’t – would recognize.”
In the end, though, “Anonymous” was not any of those things. He was some random guy named Miles Taylor. He did work for the Department of Homeland Security, but he was far from a “high-ranking official” or “name most people… would recognize.” I think this quote by Federalist editor Mollie Hemingway says it best:
“DHS actually listed 64 individuals it considered senior at the department on the day the op-ed was published.
Taylor was not one of them
. He was described as a policy advisor, not anything close to a senior administration official.”
A quick look at that link to the DHS homepage on the day the op-ed was published shows Mollie Hemingway did her homework. There are 60+ names on the homepage; sure enough, Miles Taylor is not one of them. Add in this scathing critique from an opinion writer at the Washington Post, and I think the writing’s on the wall:
“According to two sources familiar with the Times’s discussions on ‘Anonymous,’ James Dao, then the Times’s deputy editorial page editor, asked colleagues for guidance on when no-name bylines were justified. The precedent — which Dao himself would later cite — was that the section had granted anonymity when the writer’s life was in danger. In March 2016, for instance, it published a piece by a Syrian refugee with the byline reading, simply, ‘Laila.’ A tag line explained the decision: ‘Laila is a licensed hairdresser. She asked that her surname be withheld because she fears telling her story could endanger her family in Syria or affect her asylum claim.’ A similar arrangement was extended to a writer who attested to life under ISIS. Perhaps it would be best to stick to that approach.”
Why do you think the Times chose to hide the identity of a low-level staffer by making him an “anonymous” source? Is it possible that they were deliberately trying to mislead their readers about his level of access to the President so they could make his op-ed and book, based entirely on his personal opinion as a not-so-high-level staffer after all, look more official? No matter how you look at it, the bottom line is that the Times lied. Big time.
(but of course, unless you read a variety of news sources, you’d never know this happened. The New York Times certainly wasn’t going to tell you. Neither was CNN, who hired Miles Taylor as an analyst).
Back to the original two stories…
In the New York Times piece about the election, you eventually get to see names of people who have been fired or who are worried about being fired, but the closest you get to a named source for ANY information here is a link to a statement made by “top government security and election officials.” Those officials are indeed named in the link itself, but ask yourself a question: Why are they are not named or given any qualifying information at all in the actual article itself (ie: who they are, what their jobs are)? Doesn’t it feel to you like the people writing the article are going out of their way to NOT tell you who these people are? Why would they do that?
Things are not much better over at the Wall Street Journal story, either. In that piece, we don’t get a named source until the ninth paragraph, where the writers finally cite two quotes from Tim Murtaugh and Mandi Merritt, before going back to nameless sources again for the remaining 6 paragraphs.
This is behavior you wouldn’t even expect to see in a high school newspaper. The question to ask yourself is, why on earth are we seeing it in the Wall Street Journaland New York Times? What the heck is going on? Is their reporting staff really THAT incompetent? Or have they just given up on even the pretense of practicing actual journalism anymore? It’s almost like they have both decided to become fancy, east coast versions of the National Enquirer. At this point, anything’s possible.
The longer I write this blog, the more amazed I grow at the depth of the credibility problem in this nation’s news industry. Being honest, I’m not feeling too confident that any of our current, established media outlets will make it out of this period in history intact - they simply can’t go on as is. A major transformation has to happen. Only time will tell, of course, but – unfortunately - each day, our news outlets seem to prove me just a little more right.
*or email me at navigatingnews1@gmail.com
I’m taking next week off to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday, but wanted to take a moment to thank everyone who has been reading this blog each week. When I started writing it, I knew I had to speak out… but I had no idea if anyone would be interested in what I had to say. I have been blown away by the response. I am truly grateful to be able to share what I have learned with so many. Thanks so much for your interest and support.
Here’s hoping you enjoy a news-free holiday with family and friends, in person or virtually.
I’ll be back 12/4 with more Navigating News -