It’s so common now, and there’s no turning back the clock.
The issue? Unidentified sources.
This is certainly not a new phenomenon. The notion of a journalist, a reporter of some description, writing a story with compelling information from “sources” is as old as journalism. (Woodward and Bernstein will likely go to their graves without revealing the name of “deep throat”, the individual largely responsible for providing the then soon-to-be-famous investigative reporters the anonymous information that led to the disintegration of the Nixon administration in the mid 1970’s. Theirs may be one of the more prominent historical cases of the media utilizing so-called “unidentified sources” to chase down a story)
That these media “sources” are often undeclared remains through the years a question of some ethical debate. Reporters have, through the years, been willing to risk jail time in order to protect – that is, not publicly identify – their sources.
One view puts the information shared privately between the “source” and the investigating reporter in the realm of a sacred trust, not to be disclosed at any cost.
Others view this approach as a dangerous game.
If a person can report as fact something that may have occurred based on information obtained from anonymous sources, what guarantee is there that such events absolutely took place?
If a reporter quotes an individual speaking about someone else, without naming the first person, how does the public know that the quote was not simply “made up” in the interests of weaving a more ‘sale’-able story?
Might the reporter have an agenda, a personal bias?
These are but a few of the simplest questions that can be asked when discussing the reality of how such sources are utilized.
I recall a time (in the late 1970’s-early 80’s, if I’m not mistaken) when Scott Young, the highly-respected columnist for the Globe& Mail resigned his position at the prestigious Canadian national newspaper. Why? Because a younger fellow writer had written a rather poisonous piece about the then General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Punch Imlach.
Perspective and fairness requires that it be said that Young and Imlach had been close through the years, and had collaborated on a couple of popular books together. But Young’s resignation stemmed from his concern that the story which vilified Imlach was filled with quotes from unidentified sources – apparently not a longstanding or fully accepted practice at the time, at least not in Young’s mind, it would seem.
Young saw this as journalistically unsound, and lacking the high ethical standards required of a reporter.
So, he resigned in protest.
Much more recently, that same newspaper ran a major story on the alleged dysfunction within the basketball operation side of the Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment empire.
The story was sprinkled liberally with anonymous quotes about then General Manager Glen Grunwald (since fired) and his supposed internal battles with the apparently soon-to-be-fired Kevin O’Neill.
Not surprisingly, the story – quoting current and former Raptor players without attribution, as well as people supposedly ‘close’ to Raptors forward Vince Carter and others within the management group of MLSE – caused a firestorm. It also undoubtedly hastened the timetable that will see the continued dismantling of the struggling organization.
For appearances’ sake, on the record, at least, the players stood behind their coach. But the public is left to wonder: Who were these anonymous players who spoke out against O’Neill? Who were the management types who allegedly said the things they said? Did anyone have an agenda here?
Were all of these quotes accurate? Was the story really credible when everyone quoted was unnamed? Could any of this have been made up?
Was the newspaper outlet and its reporters simply reflecting what was really going on inside the organization?
In recent years, one of the best – and most outspoken – players in baseball has been pitcher Curt Schilling. Schilling of course was a mainstay with the Phillies and then the Diamondbacks, when Arizona beat the Yankees in the World Series a few seasons back.
Schilling went on a nationally syndicated radio program recently, and spoke about the media attention the Red Sox receive in Boston.
His contention was that the Boston press simply make up quotes to create stories, and sell newspapers.
So we can count Schilling as one athlete who does not support the use of anonymous quotes.
If you are a young athlete, you need to be aware that the media is always looking for a story – good, bad or anywhere in between. Most ‘beat’ reporters covering the local major-league NFL, NHL or NBA team need a story a day.
When they sense trouble in paradise (i.e. within the clubhouse or dressing room, or within the front office) it is in their blood to seek out – some will say create – the story.
They will utilize whatever approach and sources they can to develop a story that is entertaining and potentially of great interest.
It may even be accurate.
My sense has long been: if you don’t want to see it in the newspaper, don’t say it. Don’t say it in the elevator, the hotel lobby or the dressing room. On the record or “off the record”.
Just don’t say it.
If you go “off the record”, if you speak on the condition of anonymity, you may feel ‘protected’. And that particular reporter may like you as a “source”, especially if your comments gave that reporter a supposed ‘scoop’. But at the end of the day, he or she will wonder about your personal integrity, all the while using your quotes to make his or her story.
Since integrity is still important to most people, that’s something worth thinking about before playing the ‘unidentified source’ game.
