Is it true? Is it false? What is it anyway? Anonymous sources cost news agencies more in ruined reputations, and demonstrate how low some journalists will stoop to get a story. No good can come of things when personal ethics take a nose dive.
---
What anonymous sources cost journalism
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
(CNN) Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein put out a very odd statement late Thursday night. He attacked anonymous sources and insisted that any story using them is rightly viewed extremely skeptically. I reached out to Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University and the author of Press Think, a blog about media and politics, for some perspective on the history of anonymous sourcing and what it means for the future of journalism. Our conversation, conducted via email and lightly edited for flow, is below.
Cillizza: Rod Rosenstein urged "caution" for people reading stories about the Trump White House that contain anonymous sourcing. Is that caution warranted? Why or why not?
Rosen: Caution is always advisable toward stories based on anonymous sources. Yes. Even the people who produce these stories would probably agree with that. But if Rod Rosenstein wanted to warn us away from a report he knew to be misleading, his statement fails. It suffers from the same vagueness of origin that casts doubt on the statements of confidential sources.
Which revelations is Rosenstein talking about? What is the predicate for his actions in releasing this statement? What is that phrase, "when they do not identify the country..." doing in there? He seems to want to say more, but something prevents him. Or maybe he wanted to say less, but someone forced him. Either way, his statement is opaque. Which is the whole problem with confidential sources. They are opaque.
Cillizza: Let's take a step back. What is the history of anonymous sources? Where did this all start?
Rosen: I don't think we know for sure. One of the oldest dynamics in politics — reaching back to the 18th century Parliaments — is when the loser in an internal conflict decides to "change the game" by going public with a dispute that had previously been kept in house. Since they still have to live in that house, these people tend to be anonymous. This method in political combat first became possible when there were printed journals reporting on Parliament, and coffee houses where public questions were being debated— assisted, of course, by the newspapers of the day, on sale in those establishments.
Roughly speaking, then, the origins of anonymous sourcing, the birth of public opinion as a live factor in politics, and the invention of political reporting all occur together, in the mid 1700s. And that dynamic I identified — loser in an internal dispute goes public, hoping that the reaction will change the outcome — continues unchanged to this day.
Cillizza: Is anonymous sourcing on the rise?
Rosen: I would be cautious about any statement like that. That would take a massive content study to determine with any reliability. Such studies are done, but they tend to lag 5-7 years behind the fact.
The rest ici.
What anonymous sources cost journalism - CNNPolitics.com
---
What anonymous sources cost journalism
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
(CNN) Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein put out a very odd statement late Thursday night. He attacked anonymous sources and insisted that any story using them is rightly viewed extremely skeptically. I reached out to Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University and the author of Press Think, a blog about media and politics, for some perspective on the history of anonymous sourcing and what it means for the future of journalism. Our conversation, conducted via email and lightly edited for flow, is below.
Cillizza: Rod Rosenstein urged "caution" for people reading stories about the Trump White House that contain anonymous sourcing. Is that caution warranted? Why or why not?
Rosen: Caution is always advisable toward stories based on anonymous sources. Yes. Even the people who produce these stories would probably agree with that. But if Rod Rosenstein wanted to warn us away from a report he knew to be misleading, his statement fails. It suffers from the same vagueness of origin that casts doubt on the statements of confidential sources.
Which revelations is Rosenstein talking about? What is the predicate for his actions in releasing this statement? What is that phrase, "when they do not identify the country..." doing in there? He seems to want to say more, but something prevents him. Or maybe he wanted to say less, but someone forced him. Either way, his statement is opaque. Which is the whole problem with confidential sources. They are opaque.
Cillizza: Let's take a step back. What is the history of anonymous sources? Where did this all start?
Rosen: I don't think we know for sure. One of the oldest dynamics in politics — reaching back to the 18th century Parliaments — is when the loser in an internal conflict decides to "change the game" by going public with a dispute that had previously been kept in house. Since they still have to live in that house, these people tend to be anonymous. This method in political combat first became possible when there were printed journals reporting on Parliament, and coffee houses where public questions were being debated— assisted, of course, by the newspapers of the day, on sale in those establishments.
Roughly speaking, then, the origins of anonymous sourcing, the birth of public opinion as a live factor in politics, and the invention of political reporting all occur together, in the mid 1700s. And that dynamic I identified — loser in an internal dispute goes public, hoping that the reaction will change the outcome — continues unchanged to this day.
Cillizza: Is anonymous sourcing on the rise?
Rosen: I would be cautious about any statement like that. That would take a massive content study to determine with any reliability. Such studies are done, but they tend to lag 5-7 years behind the fact.
The rest ici.
What anonymous sources cost journalism - CNNPolitics.com
