He Who Cannot Be Named

Like pretty much everything else they've done, the Bush Administration got it completely wrong back in 2005 when they condemned the use of anonymous sources as a threat to the media's credibility. Concealing the identity of a source is sometimes necessary for a reporter to do their job, especially when it comes to dealing with the powerful and the privileged.

Many whistleblowers, such as the one the Bushies condemned for exposing the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, might not have come forward if they weren't guaranteed protection of their identity. Watergate is probably the most famous case of reporters using anonymous sources to uncover corruption, giving credibility to unnamed tipsters, and bestowing upon the world an illogical suffix which we can attach to the end of any word to create a scandal.

In recent years, the excellent reporting on the BALCO Scandal by the San Francisco Chronicle's Mark Fainura-Wada and Lance Williams - dependent on anonymous tips and leaked testimony - ignited the desire to rid baseball of steroids, eventually leading to Roger Clemens making himself look like an even bigger asshole than we ever though possible in front of Congress this week.

On the other hand, the use of anonymous sources allowed the RCMP to smear Maher Arar's name, and helped the Bush Administration reveal the identity of a CIA officer in an attempt to crush any dissent towards their impending invasion of Iraq. By being too reliant on unnamed sources, the reporters in these and similar instances allowed themselves to become mouthpieces for misinformation. In the case of former Washington Post reporter Janet Cook, the acceptance of anonymous sources allowed her to simply make shit up (winning her a Pulitzer Prize for her efforts) until, ironically, several unnamed sources ratted her out.

To combat these abuses, some newspapers will not allow attribution to unnamed sources. Others set very high standards for when it is allowable. The Canadian Association of Journalists provides guidelines for reporters using anonymous sources, such as:

We should strive to fully identify the sources in our stories for credibility and accountability. When sources are secret, the reader or audience has less information on which to judge the reliability of the source's comments. Also, anonymity might encourage the source to make irresponsible statements.

However, confidential sources can be a vital tool in the free flow of information. There can be clear and pressing reasons to protect anonymity. In print media, we may conceal the identity of interview subjects by changing their names or by not naming the source. In broadcast, we may protect identities through digital or other technical methods, such as concealing an interviewees face or distorting their voice.

We should use such methods only when the participation of the subject puts them at risk of harm or personal hardship (i.e., a whistleblower who might lose his/her job, or a mole within organized crime.)

...More than one source should be used to verify a story or fact. If only one source is available, we must say so.

We will not allow anonymous sources to take cheap shots at individuals or organizations. We will independently corroborate facts, if we get them from a source we do not name.

The Canadian Press Style Book, the style and content bible for most newspapers in Canada, suggests the following when it comes to unnamed sources:

Regular use of unnamed sources weakens our news reports. CP should be firm in discouraging the quoting of sources who want to hide their identities.

The Canadian Press also offers the following guidelines:

Reporters writing stories containing unnamed sources must be able to demonstrate:
a). The information is of genuine public interest;
b). The information can be verified by at least one other source, even if unnamed;
c). The source is known to them
d). There is no real possibility that the source is using CP for selfish purposes;
e). Normal standards of fairness and balance are followed.

Think about the stories you have read in the sports pages this week and compare them to these standards. Did George Gross's column from Wednesday, quoting an unanmed NHL GM saying he wouldn't trade a seventh rounder for Darcy Tucker, need to have an anonymous source? (Actually, that is a trick question, since, if it weren't for the anonymous source, there wouldn't have been a story at all. Still, this is journalism? Unsubstantiated back-room gossip is headline worthy?) Was anyone's life in danger? Was there any possibility that the GM in question was using Gross for his own selfish purposes? Like, maybe to drive down Darcy's trade value, as the Meatriarchy pointed out?

How about Steve Simmons' hatchet-job on the character and competitiveness of Mats Sundin in Friday's Sun? It was hardly Watergate. Did Simmons not learn his lesson during Hip-gate? Apparently unnamed sources aren't a last-resort when reporting on a story of significance, but a cheap way to fill inches on a slow news day? (By the way, I call shenanigans on that entire column. These two people that Simmons interviewed are not Mats Sundin's friends. How do I know this, having never met them? Easy: friends don't talk shit about you behind your back to Steve Simmons. These people may know Mats, but they are not his friends.)

I could go on and on and on and on, since unnamed sources are a staple of the sports pages. I understand that trade rumours are often dependent on anonymity, and I don't think people like Marty York and Bob McKenzie should have to name their sources when they relay a rumour. Luckily, their work can be judged on the accuracy of their reports, and we can decide whether or not to believe what they write. A columnist is only as good as his sources, and if those sources are good, the stories will be as well. That is why Peter Gammons is widely respected (or at least was) and Eklund can't show his face on TV.

But, when Darren Dreger goes beyond trade rumours and starts telling people that "his sources are saying" the Leafs are purposefully tanking this season, that is when we call bullshit. You should not be able to go on television and say anything you like without any proof besides ethereal sources (besides, that is what blogs are for.) When a columnist attacks someone's reputation or when a television talking-head maligns an entire organization, shouldn't there be certain standards in place to ensure that what we are reading or hearing is accurate, fair, and not fabricated? Oh yeah, those standards do exist, but for some reason, the people that employ the Dregers and Grosses of this world don't seem to enforce them.

Check out this column by Kamloops This Week reporter Cassidy Olivier in which she wrestles with the implications of granting a source anonymity and tell me if you honestly believe that these kind of thoughts passed, for even one second, through the brains of Dreger, Gross or Simmons. It is too bad that Kamloops This Week doesn't have more Leafs coverage.

On a side-note, I will give Simmons and Gross some credit for at least naming the players they have chosen to write shit about. Check out this little gem from Damien Cox's Sunday column:

Naturally, you'll now see the fellows who did squat when the Leafs actually were in contention for a playoff berth start producing. No surprise there.

Pssst...Darcy Tucker...he's talking about you...