Abusing the Signal
The ethics of using anonymous sources are an intricate pancake indeed. Note the high ethical standard on display in this US News & World Report article, for instance:
Republican strategists trying to game Sen. Barack Obama's choice for a running mate are focusing more and more on the possibility that he might pick former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, a friend of labor and blue-collar workers. "Gephardt is the one we're most afraid of," said a key GOP strategist and Bush ally.
The reporter knows that this unnamed GOP source is using him to "game" the Democrats on the issue of the vice presidential pick. In other words, he knows that he is being screwed with, and plays along, even letting the GOP operative not give his name, because... well, just because! He has access, dammit!
I fail to see how there is any ethical reason whatsoever for granting anonymity to someone who is clearly interested solely in propaganda. That this is of course SOP is pretty goddamn depressing.
Well, Obama's black, y'know. And Democratic. No doubt we'd see the same BS if Hillary were the nominee - probably droolier and smearier, I'd guess.
The funny(?) thing about these anonymous source tidbits is that, quite honestly, we have no idea if these "sources" are actually as described. Hell, any reporter could be making up quotes and pinning them to a "high-level official" or "source close to the administration." (I suppose that's a post of its own, and probably not an original one, at this point. Still...) Notice this article doesn't end with the all too familiar "...who asked to remain anonymous."
It's going to be an ugly, ugly Summer, I fear.
Posted by: Ripley | July 03, 2008 at 04:12 PM
I heard that Saint Russert allowed that all conversations were off the record until his betters said otherwise .
Posted by: theperilouspea | July 03, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Gephardt?
Pfui, at least they stopped floating Sam Nunn.
The veepstakes gives me hairballs.
Posted by: ¡El Gato Negro! | July 03, 2008 at 05:04 PM
I think Gephardt's just a feint to obscure the real choice: Al Sharpton
[/Anonymous Republican Source]
Posted by: Jay B. | July 03, 2008 at 05:25 PM
Anonymous sources tell me that Geraldo Rivera will be the new editor of US News & World Report.
Posted by: rea | July 03, 2008 at 06:55 PM
Howdy Doody? We're supposed to believe that the Republicans are afraid of Howdy Fucking Doody?
Posted by: Dave | July 03, 2008 at 09:18 PM
Sad, really. I've always been a Gephardt fan. It's a shame he really is that unelectable.
Posted by: EJ | July 03, 2008 at 10:03 PM
geez, even i'm not afraid of dick gephardt.
Posted by: skippy | July 03, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Wasn't Dick Gephardt the one the Post proclaimed was Kerry's running mate?
Don't they have any imagination?
Posted by: Nora | July 04, 2008 at 08:51 AM
False. It's sufficient to identify the source as "a key GOP strategist and Bush ally." What difference does it make who it is? They're all idiots.
Posted by: Stuart Eugene Thiel | July 04, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Man, I swear to you, when I took the various classes in reporting and ethics and all that good stuff at the University of Florida journalism school just 10 all-too-swift years ago, several very serious professors told me over and over to never, ever use anonymous sources for anything you couldn't verify, source and thus print. For background, sure, but as a main source quote.
I know I didn't just imagine it, 'cause I remember my first editor when I was 15 telling me the exact same thing. Either they let you use their name or you don't use their info.
I swear. I seriously don't understand it.
Posted by: Matt T. | July 05, 2008 at 04:40 PM