# Explain "Anonymous Sources", please

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-anonymous-sources-please/780755>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 25, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-anonymous-sources-please/780755 "2017-02-25T17:42:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\
**Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-anonymous-sources-please/780755/21 "2017-03-07T02:27:18Z")

</div>

Obviously it’s fairly cowardly, “ **Tell the Truth, and Shame the Devil** ” is a good motto for any honest politician; however occasionally it might be part of a turf-war higher up. One chieftain wants to embarrass another, or two departments are bickering, or someone wants to shame the administration but dare not due to Obama’s crushing of whistle-blowers \* — so they delegate it to an underling who insists on anonymity.

- _“The absolute twisted passion with which the administration under Obama’s leadership has pursued whistleblowers is just appalling,” says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of [RootsAction.org](http://RootsAction.org). “And as far as I can tell, the administration is unrepentant in that process. There’s just no other administration that comes close.”_

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\
**Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-anonymous-sources-please/780755/22 "2017-03-07T03:21:38Z")

</div>

> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#):
>
> 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?

How do you know an acquaintance or relative of yours is a liar? It’s rare that it is because of a single falsehood (they could well have misheard something or repeated someone else who lied…), but usually because of a pattern of behavior. The same is true with reporters.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\
**Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-anonymous-sources-please/780755/23 "2017-03-07T04:30:37Z")

</div>

**"What I don’t get are the official un-named sources." M #19**

Perhaps it’s to indicate that it’s not just a homeless drunk making up some wild tale in hope of getting enough change tossed into his hat for another bottle of Thunderbird.

The word “official” imparts an impression of reliability, without exposing any particular person.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-anonymous-sources-please/780755.md?page=1)