Sources Say. When those two little words anchor a big news story, I cringe. Are the secret informants reliable? Are they right?
Or are they people with an axe to grind? Are they manipulating facts for their own purposes, taking a gullible newspaper and its readers for a ride?
For a news reporter or columnist, a solid inside source on nefarious goings-on in government, or corporate shenanigans, can be money in the bank. Many days, reporters are only as good as their informants.
The identity of a good source isn’t something to be shared, except maybe with the editor who decides whether to go with the story.
“Without anonymous sources, I couldn’t do my job,” a seasoned writer at The Star (unnamed) remarked the other day in a brief corridor conversation.
She’s right. An unnamed player can be the starting point for a good story, if the scoop can be confirmed elsewhere, preferably by people who have names.
And don’t put it past media-savvy governments to play elaborate games with selected reporters who get rewarded with a news break on tomorrow’s announcement.
It happens often. The government scores a publicity coup with the initial “sources-say” yarn, sometimes one-sided. Then, on Day Two comes the formal announcement and a second home run for the government’s publicity apparatus.
Call the ombud nave and too far removed from the realities of scrabbling for news, but I believe readers have reason to be skeptical when it’s only “sources” who do the talking.
When the sources are wrong, they’re wrong anonymously and it’s the newspaper’s credibility that gets publicly dented.
When I was a reporter, shortly after the last ice age, wary editors used to remind us that a reporter’s byline becomes a blameline when unnamed sources are discredited.
It’s in times of genuine global crisis and confusion (such as now) that newsroom sermonettes about the dangers of anonymous sources need to be delivered more frequently, and in gruffer tones.
A case in point. Two days after the suicide attacks on New York and Washington, ABC News reported that federal authorities had narrowly averted two more highjackings.
According to information gathered from unidentified U.S. sources, 10 people had been arrested, some carrying knives and boxcutters, at La Guardia and Kennedy airports.
Reportedly, some had open tickets. At least two had been turned away from a check-in counter on the day of the tragic attacks just before U.S. flights were cancelled.
Both airports were closed down again, as TV viewers watched anchor Peter Jennings imploring his reporters to get more information and beseeching government officials to confirm or knock down the story.
Next morning, fully expecting to see many details of this big story in The Star, I was surprised to learn that the story had all but collapsed of its own weight.
Nearly all the detainees had been freed. None had carried knives. The TV network, however, continued to stand behind its story, according to the New York Times.
Recently, The Star reported that “sources” said a man (named) linked to a terrorist group funded by Osama bin Laden had been arrested carrying a map of New York and blueprints of the World Trade Center.
Not only was it impossible to confirm this potentially damaging information, who were the sources? Turns out there was only one, a reporter from Italy who had filed the story to her paper back home.
See why I cringe?
