- The Washington Times - Tuesday, September 8, 2020

It’s two months before the election — the election that’s being shaped like it’s the Most. Important. Election. Ever. — and suddenly, from left field, comes hurling a fast ball from The Atlantic magazine against Donald Trump alleging the president in 2018 bashed former Marines and U.S. veterans by calling them “losers” and “suckers.”

Thing is: The sources are anonymous.

And no amount of reporters, journalists, correspondents, pundits or writers claiming they, too, have sources who say they heard Trump say all that changes this simple fact: These sources are anonymous.

They’re unknowns.

And that automatically makes them suspect.

Fox’s Jennifer Griffin may be a “very good reporter,” as Fox’s Neil Cavuto declared in a recent segment in which Griffin said she, too, has sources “who were able to confirm” some of what The Atlantic anonymously cited Trump as saying.

But her sources are still anonymous, too. Her sources are still suspect.

And rightly so.

There used to be a time when editors and news executives insisted their journalists cite sources by name — that anonymous voices could only be used to confirm the on-the-record sources, or in the most circumspect of situations, where the benefit to the public was deemed critically important. Think national security. Think a crisis of the Constitution.

What not to think?

A president, any president, slinging names at the nation’s military.

Particularly when the name-slinging allegedly took place years ago but suspiciously is only coming to light just weeks before a presidential election.

Journalism’s own high-brow gate guards even recognize the need for treading carefully and infrequently over that rough patch of road called Anonymous Sources. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee writes that it’s important to fall on the side of “identifying sources whenever feasible” because a) the public is entitled to judge the source’s reliability and b) journalists should be protective of their own reputations for credibility.

SPJ goes on to write that journalists should “[a]lways question sources’ motives before promising anonymity,” and to “be sure the reason [for anonymity] is not to … even the score with a rival, to attack an opponent or to push a personal agenda.”

Ethical Journalism Network says similarly.

“[A]nonymity is not a privilege to be enjoyed by people who are self-seeking and who benefit by personal gain through keeping their identity secret,” the nonprofit writes. EJN then goes on to say reporters ought to run through a checklist of questions before publishing anonymously sourced material, including, “What is the likely motivation for demanding anonymity?” and “Is there no other way to get and publish this information?”

The Associated Press has a pretty decent policy in place regarding anonymous sources.

“Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if: The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report; The information if not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source; [and] the source is reliable,” AP writes.

On top of that, AP reporters citing anonymous sources must first obtain the OK of news managers, who are responsible for vetting the text.

“The manager must know the identity of the source,” AP writes.

All that’s to say: Anonymous sources, by journalism’s own standards, are to be used sparingly, only when absolutely necessary for the public good, and in best-case scenario, only when higher-ups in the newsroom have signed off on their use.

A story of Trump name-calling is hardly earth-shattering — even if the target of his name-calling is America’s military.

This is not a Watergate, people. This is watercooler gossip.

These anonymous sources need to come out of the shadows — or go unpublished. As it is, they’re cowards being sheltered by biased anti-Trumpers in the media. So sources say, anyway.

• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter by clicking HERE.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide