Now that the Cheeto in Chief has opined that reporters should not be able to cite a source unless they provide the source’s name (while at the same time the administration officials will only comment if the remained unnamed), could someone explain the theory of unofficial officials to me? I understand why media sources might wish to remain anonymous. If their bosses found out who was talking, their career and, maybe, freedom could be in jeopardy. But what about anonymous “official” sources. It seems to me they are most often releasing information with approval from above and are in no professional danger. Are these just trial balloons? Some sort of long standing understanding between media and government? Why do public officials not want to be held accountable for what they say? How can Trump insist on names from the media while not allowing his own mouthpieces to be named? Will some reporter ask him or one of his minions (just not Conway - I can’t take any more of her question dodging) that when they get the chance, please?
Moderator Note
Let’s refrain from political jabs in GQ, especially in the OP. No warning issued.
Since most of your questions require opinions or are debatable, let’s move this to GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Okay. The percentage of insults, prejudices, and ignorance-based assumptions per word count in your opening post is impressive. I don’t like the current Commander In Chief either, but if you can’t even bring yourself to refer to him as who and what he is, there is little chance that you will be receptive to, or capable of recognizing, serious responses to what you seem to want to know.
For now, all I will say, is that the reasons for anonymity of sources is tremendously varied and complicated, and most of those reasons are valid and important for even more complicated reasons. At the same time, as with anything, the use of anonymous sourcing can and has been abused, again, in ways that are complicated from the other direction.
To understand even a few of the real positive reasons, you have to have a greater knowledge of especially American history, to even begin to grasp the required concepts and to recognize the validity of the concerns. The way your question is phrased, strongly suggests you don’t have this background.
I suggest you refine your question with some specifics, to start, since exploring a particular historic example of how exactly the release of information by whom and how, actually directly affected the success or failure of the incident/activity involved.
Sometimes they’re trial balloons, sometimes they’re low-level staffers, sometimes they are simply made up by the reporter.
Every President complains about leaks. It is how the establishment brings the President to heel.
Regards,
Shodan
And the lack of content in your reply suggests that you don’t know the answer, either.
There’s various reasons why governments may authorize officials to speak on background (that is, without their name being used, which is not the same as off the record). Just a few of them:
-
The briefing may be of more technical details of an issue, so as to expand reporters’ understanding of complex topics. Generally these briefings or whatever may be done by lower officials.
-
The government may have a preference to not have information provided by unnamed officials step on the policy statements of more senior, named officials in a story.
-
The fact that an official isn’t named may allow the official to have more candor with journalists.
-
Trial balloons, as mentioned, such that it is easy to walk away from one that fails.
Contrary to Shodan’s assertion, there’s little reason to believe that such sources are fabricated on a routine basis. Reporters have certainly made up sources in the past, and it’s a career-killing move if caught.
But certainly they are on occasion, such as Donald Trump’s tweet on 6 Aug, 2012:
He was simply claiming without attribution that someone that he personally determined to be ‘extremely credible’ made that claim.
Sorry that I let me feelings about the current administration shine though in my question. I stand corrected. That said, please enlighten me as to the some of the complicated reasons for anonymous sourcing. I’m pretty sure I’ll be able to begin to grasp them. If someone is releasing information to the press with the approval of higher ups why not own it? One obvious reason is deniability. But why would one want to deny what has been approved for release. What are some other reasons?
BTW, what ignorance-based assumptions did I male in the OP? That many of these sources are releasing information with approval? Is that not the case? For someone who is critical of assumptions you made a few of your own. I freely admit that I am ignorant of the whole “anonymous sourcing” bit. When you find time to get off your horse please fight my ignorance.
I suspect that sometimes the administration wants to release information to a specific paper or channel - possibly for something in return - and do it off the record so as not to anger the other publications with overt favoritism.
It’s also a way to enjoy plausible deniability - they want the public to know something, but they don’t want to answer questions about it.
Ravenman - you posted while I was typing my reply. Thanks for the info. I guess one thing I have an issue is the candor part. Maybe its unrealistic thinking, but why can’t someone be frank and honest in the open? If they are giving the info they must assume that its going to be published. Off the record? Got it. But official (or quasi-official) and anonymous don’t seem to go together. And why would technical details need to be provided anonymously? I guess my feelings about the lack of accountability in society, generally, really come to the surface when it comes to politics and politicians.
Pardon my simplicity, but how do we know how often it happens?
You say reporters have made up sources in the past. You then mention what happens if a reporter is caught doing it. But how do you catch a reporter doing it? I mean, if he really does have a source who insists on not being named, then as far as I can tell he just says – honestly – “Well, uh, I have a source who insists on not being named.” What does he say if he’s a lying liar who lies?
Given Trump’s performance throughout his life, there is no reason to believe that anyone, particularly anyone in government or law enforcement, was Trump’s source and every reason to believe that Trump made it up or was quoting some Tea Party blogger.
And since the public “source” of the statement–Trump, himself–was named, that is not a case of the news media using an “anonymous source” or making up anything. For Trump’s claim to have fallen into the realm of “anonymous source,” the story would have to have been posted as a news story by a genuine news outlet such as the Washington Post or the Washington Times or broadcast by CNN or Fox without naming Trump as the source. When any twit gets up and declares to a news agency that they have anonymously provided information, as long as the news agency names the twit making the claim, the claim is not an “anonymous source.” The news agency has provided the name of a person who may be questioned on the information; it is up to them to provide evidence that the claim is true.
Your opening post included incorrect assumptions, which made your ignorance clear to anyone who HAS studied enough history. That’s why I mentioned that.
"If someone is releasing information to the press with the approval of higher ups why not own it? One obvious reason is deniability. But why would one want to deny what has been approved for release. What are some other reasons? "
As above, there are various possibilities. It has occurred many times, that the person who directs that something be “leaked,” specifically wants it to BE a leak, and not an announcement, for strategic reasons. One example is indeed deniability, and in such a case, if the person who does the leaking DOES take open credit for it, they will instantly defeat the purpose of the “leak.” They wont be doing their job.
One fairly clever trick that has been used lots of times (especially recently), has been to “leak” something impending, which outrages a lot of people. The “leak” is purposely anonymous, so as to preserve the jobs of the “leakers,” but the “leak” is actually false. It’s more than a “test balloon,” as someone else mentioned, it’s much sneakier.
The “leak” would be that the government was ABOUT TO do something very upsetting. The leak would get everyone riled up, cause the press to go into a frenzy of activity, get lots of self-righteous posturing going on by opposition people…then go into phase two: denying that the leak is true. That phase is timed as well, and lasts for at least long enough that the administration can puff themselves up as being more responsible than the unruly and careless media.
Then the REAL shoe drops. When the actual planned action is announced, even though everyone WOULD have been upset about it, because it isn’t as bad in comparison to what was leaked, everyone sighs in relief, instead of leaping into action to oppose it.
Private corporations have used the trick for eons, “leaking” something outrageous, such as that they are about to lower pay by forty percent or some such. All the employees and the union (if there is one) goes into overdrive in opposition, everyone freaks, until the CEO says it’s false. Everyone calms down a bit. Then the real announcement, a cut in health care coverage, and a sharp rise in it’s employee costs is announced, and everyone says “well, that’s a bummer, but it’s not as bad as a forty percent wage cut.”
Again from history studies: you can look in particular, at a lot of purposeful “leaks” which were done at the direction of the people in charge during wartime, for some more clues. And just because there isn’t actual shooting going on in most politics, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a form of warfare. In such situations, leaks have to be made to those who will let the “enemy” know what’s going on, in a way that makes it APPEAR that the leak is real. If you openly tell reporters that you allow them to announce your name along with the “leak,” the reporters will know that you aren’t “leaking” anything at all, and will become suspicious of your real intent. In war, “leakers” are referred to as “double agents” in many cases, because they pretend to be working for both sides, as a part of hiding their true loyalties and goals from whoever their actual enemy is.
Back to a peacetime leak scenario: if leaks are NOT anonymous, and the administration fails to punish the leaker instantly, it will either destroy the credibility of the administration, or of the leaker, and again, the leak will fail.
Another fundamental reason for anonymity, is so that the REPORTERS can have any access at all. If the reporters all insist on being allowed to quote people directly, no real leaks will take place at all. No one will talk to them ON the record, and destroy their own career.
Again, if you read enough of what has gone before, all of this would have been obvious. I meant no disrespect in my pointing out your ignorance of history, though I understand why it might sound that way. Lots of people react very badly to the word “ignorance,” because too many other people use it as an insult. I do not. It is a factual label.
To sum up: there are lots of different kinds of reasons for “leaks.” Each one has it’s own separate reason why the leak must be anonymous, so you can’t answer why in a simple one or two line post.
Which is possibly why he thinks unnamed sources are fake. He knows that he makes them up all the time (“many people are saying…”) and so he assumes that so must everyone else; assumes that a quote without a name didn’t really happen. He has no understanding of how journalists work and concept of journalistic integrity.
Two questions: do you always tell your wife if an outfit looks unflattering on her? And, how many wives have you had?
Many times people say they want the truth, but they don’t like it when it is told to them in a blunt manner. I thought everyone knew this.
As an experienced journalist, most of what I was going to say has been covered by igor frankensteen.
I’ll note that often an anonymous source is leaking information without the tacit approval of the higher-ups.
Also, I’m not sure about the US, but in Australia professional standards say anonymous sources should only be used sparingly and with a very good reason - but if a journalist agrees to keep a source anonymous they must do everything in their power to preserve that anonymity.
The British TV show Yes Minister had an episode called Bed of Nails that gives a pretty good, though humorous, list of examples of why a government official might wish to be an “unofficial source”. Basically, it is a way to get public opinion on your side in order to force action when doing so openly would be career suicide. You might want to watch that one.
Anonymous leaks are helpful to a government because they can release information in an ambiguous way. For instance they can leak a policy change and see how people react to it. They can release threats or promises to other countries without risking their credibility by making an official release. They can lie about something without the accountability of an interview.
Rex Smith & Dr. Alan Chartok addressed this in their weekly WAMC presentation: The Media Project
Reputable journalists would obviously prefer to provide attribute.
But sometimes they can’t get the information without assurance of anonymity.
Remember Watergate’s “deep throat”?
That turned out to be FBI agent Mark Felt.
Would Woodward & Bernstein have been able to crack the Watergate burglary scandal, and subsequent Nixon administration cover-up, without such anonymous insider insight?
The problem of course is:
“trust us” is prone to abuse.
Even Tony Blair drank this Kool-aid.
And it turned out to be an outright lie.
And now we’re down 4,487, because our president lied to U.S.
I understand “real” leakers and anonymous sources and their value. What I don’t get are the official un-named sources. Back when I started this thread there was supposed to be a meeting or briefing or whatever you want to call it where administration officials were going to meet with the media and release some sort of information on the condition that they not be named. While, at the same time, Trump was saying no news story that doesn’t name its sources should be published or allowed or whatever. This was not cloak and dagger stuff but a scheduled event. Everyone would know who said what but agree to leave names out when reporting. I don’t know if this ended up being the session where CNN and some others were not invited or not. Its this kind thing that has me a bit baffled.
I think that you might have several things conflated with this.
First off, Trump has demonstrated such unpredictable behavior and self-contradiction, I suggest that using his statements to try to formulate anything systematic, isn’t going to succeed. And if he said nothing that isn’t attributed openly shouldn’t be published, then that would eliminate most of what he’s said for the last decade, at least.
I’m not familiar with the exact meeting you are vaguely referring to, but the one you mentioned (the session where CNN, BBC and others were kept out) would not have been what you are describing. The limited “news release” you refer to, was just a setup where Trump wanted to control reporting by limiting his announcements to known-friendly people. The ones invited weren’t required to keep secret who said what, in that meeting.
I am familiar with another fairly common practice, where officials speak to reporters OFF THE RECORD. The official reason given for many such instances, has been that the official wanted to try to steer reporting back to what the administration wanted , but didn’t want their remarks to be taken as being official policy statements. It’s most commonly used to provide context and background information to the reporter, again trying to keep such information from being reported as an official policy statement.
There can be all sorts of motivations for it, on the part of the person talking off the record. It CAN be that they are trying to avoid being fired for speaking without permission, but it can also be an attempt to calm speculative reporting down, that is making the actual intent of the administration to be worse than it is. It can be an act of personal political maneuvering for advancement as well, of course, and it can be an attempt to trick reporters in to making mistakes, or chasing after a wrong lead.
Perhaps your confusion about all this, really just comes down to your expecting it to be more straightforward than it is. It really is a very complicated subject area, and if you try to conclude that there’s only one or two basic reasons for what you see happen, you will lead yourself astray, or confuse yourself by accident.
The main thing I HOPE you learn about all this, is that the Trump administrations attempts to make you and others believe that all unattributed reports are lies, fake news, or attacks by cowards, is itself a ploy to get you to ignore what’s happening right in front of you.