In Praise of Anonymous Sources
I’m always amazed when people complain about stories based on anonymous sources. In general, anonymous sources about politics or finance are better than people who are willing to speak on the record. That’s because politics and finance don’t reward openness and honesty, so anyone willing to speak to you is probably lying. Anonymous sources lie and have agendas as well, but at least there is a vague possibility they are being honest.
The problem isn’t anonymous sources in and of themselves. The problem is when Hillary Clinton (or anyone in any presidential administration) holds a press conference and then at some point goes off the record because the the White House wants information out there, but also wants plausible deniability — and zero accountability. And the the Washington press corps lets themselves be used that way every time.
A few summers ago, I was in Iowa while the Bush administration was doing some sort of Midwest tour, talking directly to the people. Some officials (maybe Bush himself, too?) were holding a press conference that included reporters from Des Moines and Omaha. Someone tried to become an anonymous source, but none of the reporters would write about it off the record, so the “White House official” was forced to put his or her name (and if I remember correctly is it was a big name) to the quotes.
Are anonymous sources sometimes essential? No doubt. But Sometimes using an anonymous source is pure laziness or not wanting to stand up to the truth. Sometimes, if you look a little harder you can find someone who will put their name to the information.
Anonymous sources are like pit bulls. They’re not inherently bad, but people abuse them and ruin it for the rest of us.
