A Special Fourth of July Rant About Shoddy Reporting

Today, a lot of us will get drunk, blow stuff up, and eat way too much as part of a celebration of our ancestors' declaration of independence from the British crown 234 years ago.  Fifteen years after that declaration, the Bill of Rights was passed, which created a set of guarantees for our then-floundering union's citizenry.  Among those was the freedom of the press.

The definition of press has certainly evolved, devolved, and re-evolved in that multi-century span, but in recent weeks some particular actors have proven an utter disrespect for the practice of sports reporting. 

Sports reporting is a changing animal.  The number of outlets that report news are growing as the print industry is languishing.  The competition for breaking stories has increased even though the number of people who make a living doing that alone is smaller.  You know that. 

For those who are feeling that they are fighting to stay relevant and meaningful as newspeople - or those outlets that have an aggressive agenda to claim they are "breaking" news - anonymous sourcing has become an awfully convenient excuse for lousy and inaccurate reporting.  Ranging from Stephen A. Smith's absolute fabrication that Lebron is going to Miami for some kind of three-way with D Wade and Chris Bosh (who sorely needs a snazzy shortened name) to Orange Bloods' supposed leadership on the Big 12/none/10 non-story, the key link between the two is anonymous sources.

The other day, ESPN.com's front page sidebar had its four top stories begin with the word "source(s)."  No names.  Sources have almost become cliche at this point.  "A source tells me," "according to sources," and the like have become almost standard fare in almost any sports story today.  A source told me that the Orioles lost last night to the Red Sox 3-2.  See? It's fun and it sounds better than: I went over to MLB.com yesterday and looked at the box score.

Claiming an anonymous, nameless source is helpful in two ways: (1) it allows a writer to claim information as their own and (b) if the information is bogus, untrue, or later disproven, then the writer can blame the source. 

If it turns out the source is right (well, first, actually exists, then second is correct), the reporter looks like a genius.  They found a scoop and reported it to the world first.  Kudos to you, cunning journo!  You're behind an exclusive.  Also, you're doing your job.  The name stays out there and stock goes higher.  The operation looks good, too.

When the story doesn't turn out the way the source claimed it would, the writer's response is simple.  Oh, the source wasn't inside enough.  Things changed all of a sudden.  What a shame.

The problem with anonymous sourcing is that there is no consequence for anyone involved in the whole process when things go awry.  Since the source has no name - and, hell, may not even be real - there is no punishment for them.  Imaginary friends never talk back, fight, or get in trouble.

In this transaction, the lone person left to take the fall is the reporter, right?  Why not get a second anonymous source?  I mean, in the few days I actually spent in JOUR 100 in college, I was taught to have at least two sources.  No one said they had to have a name (though that may have been covered in the third class, which I did not attend).  But then again, that takes too long and the added "s" on the end takes up precious Twitter real estate. 

For all we know, the reporter simply just made up the source as a person and what they told them.  Voices inside your head could be a source, I suppose, but then that source turns into a column or prognostication, not breaking news.  And ironically for this piece, there are a lot of those types of writers lurking around the series of tubes that is the Web.  Opinion dominates the sporting discussion - as it should - but there are few scribes that can truly break news consistently.  Sourcing to an anonymous person can still allow that, even if the news isn't really true.

Anonymous seems to know a whole hell of a lot.  It knows so much that it often conflicts with itself in the vain of a mad genius.  How much money is Tiger's wife getting?  $350 million?  $750 million? A coupon book from McDonald's?  Depends on which anonymous talks.

The sum of anonymous sources leads to a deep skepticism and cynicism about truth in reporting.  It devalues the meaning of information.  True, good information can be priceless.  Day-to-day information is almost now meaningless.  There's little verdad out there.  Salt substitute can't even make it better.  In the rush to be first, reporters who rely on this tactic too often are lumped in collectively with those who choose not to do so or will engage in the practice sparingly.  The end result is that having a source turns out to be no benefit at all, at least without a name, because there can always be a conflicting Dr. Who around the corner. 

The news isn't real until it truly, physically happens.  In a Bowie-esque oddity, that actually places more value on when things really do occur.  Unfortunately for writers, that means that breaking news is no longer a vehicle for growing one's reputation.  News is accessible to anyone today.  Facebook, Twitter, the Web, et al show things as they happen.  A camera phone can and does make headlines go. 

Writers can handle this reality in one of two ways.  The first is what I've been bemoaning this entire piece: writing as though they are anticipating news.  The event itself to these folks is anti-climactic.  It is the rush of getting out there first to predict what will happen.  Kreskin made a career of it.  They can, too.  It often leads to confusion for the news consumer.  What really will happen?  And if it doesn't like the writer described, what does it say of them?

The other way to face the displacement of the news intelligentsia to share events in real time is to become more of a thinker and less of a spouter.  Events and news have sprawling impact on the world.  The fallout needs to be identified, understood, and analyzed.  No anonymity is required to do it.  Perhaps a Valium may be.  Still, it is a more honorable practice to offer reasoned, intelligent, and thoughtful analysis of what actually happens - or could happen next - then to potentially fabricate sources and/or mislead readers.

As a final comment, the truth is that anonymous sourcing is not a tactic that should be outlawed or shunned altogether.  Hardly.  Anonymous sources have done wonders in the world of political and social change.  Presidents have been brought down by anonymous sources, and for good reason.  The irresponsible way that anonymous sourcing is being used by - candidly - a group of egomaniacal attention whores disguised by wearing a Press cap does a disservice to the likes of Woodward and Bernstein, and others who employed the practice for good and truth.

I take that back.  It does do a service: as a slap in the face of good investigation.