I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who……
The issue of "unnamed sources" as the only source in news reports and modern journalism.
Rumors spread across social media that the creation of an U.S. only version of TikTok was near, as part of the deal being worked out in order for users to continue to utilize the app under the ban and forced sale, set in motion by Congress last session. It was one of those reports that seemed legitimate. The story first broke in the publication, The Information. While this may not be a well known publication, it is considered a highly reputable source of news for the technology sector. There may not be much reason to inherently distrust the outlet. But, there were some red flags in this article. Most notably the use of one anonymous source.
The use of unnamed sources as the only evidence in a news story has become more and more common in journalism, and it is something we should all be more aware and concerned with. There used to be a bold line drawn between a rumor and a news story. It seems that line is being redrawn, or blurred more every day. The end result is a skewed perception of what is really going on in the world, and loss of trust in media as a whole.
That isn’t to say that all unnamed sources are bad, or simply putting rumors out into the world. Whistleblowers are a perfect example of “unnamed sources” that are not only typically reliable, but also rely on anonymity in order to protect themselves. However, an unnamed whistleblower, and “unnamed source close to the situation”, are not the same. Not only are the two classifications not the same in general perception, but they are also legally different. Whistleblowers have legal protections that simple “sources close” to a situation do not.
The TikTok story was eventually picked up and sent out through Reuters. The wire service gave credit to the The Information, and included its own unnamed sources. They then released a second article, claiming it was an “exclusive”, yet, it provided no more concrete information that the previous articles had, and again, no concrete, named sources. After a few days of speculation, TikTok released a statement refuting the articles, and the rumor that a U.S. only app was in development.
The issue with the reporting isn’t whether there is a U.S. only version of the app coming. That’s immaterial to the real problem with these articles. The main concern this highlights is simply that no one could provide any sort of hard evidence one way or the other. The entire reporting was based on an unnamed source. Even more so, there was no information about this source what so ever. “A source close to” could be anyone. It could be an engineer, it could be a staffer to a politician. It could be the husband or wife of someone who has an actual john title, who was told this information during pillow talk. The bottom line is, we simply don’t know. We have zero reference to assess the credibility of the source, even if the publication itself is considered reputable. (Later reporting by Reuters would name them as current employees, but again, this begs the question….how are they employed? Parking attendent? Janitor? Coder? Executive?)
The practice of using “unnamed source(s) close to” a situation, is simply becoming too commonplace as the sole source within a news story.
Journalism professors have been pushing back, and calling attention to the dangers for nearly a decade. Yet, the use of these sources continues to rise. In 2014, the Poynter Institute, a non-partisan organization that centers on journalism training and ethics ran an article on this exact topic. Likening unnamed sources to a “false god". Explaining that reliance on anonymous sources, solely to break a story is a dangerous game of factual and ethical roulette; citing a major issue with reporting that only relies on unnamed sources.
“That’s one problem with anonymous sources: They often get it wrong because why make sure you have it right when you will not be held accountable for what you say.
And even if it is accurate, readers cannot judge the value of the material for themselves if they don’t know the source. Many sources hide behind anonymity to take cheap shots without anyone knowing they have an axe to grind or a dog in the fight.”
This becomes even more insidious when it becomes layered in news article after news article. The TikTok app story was based on an anonymous source. That story was then cited by other news outlets. They cite the original article as the original source of the story. They also have their own unnamed sources. Suddenly, you have a story being spread with no actual proof of anything within its contents. Just unsubstantiated quotes, on quotes, on quotes, by people we have no reference to judge the honesty of.
It is less likely that journalists are purposefully setting out to violate the ethics of their profession. Rather, it is simply the way the business is changing. With the rise of reliance on the 24 hour news cycle, social media and the influx of independent journalists, the pressure is higher than ever to be the first to break a story. Sometimes that means granting people the title of anonymous when they previously wouldn’t have been. Other times it means running with a story with such limited information, it may later be proven false. The overall result of this is loss of integrity for both the journalist and the publication.
There is some defense of the practice. It could also be said that in the era of this regime that unnamed sources are doing so, because they are afraid to speak out. We should accept this argument to a degree. We have seen time and time again the fervor with which MAGA will attack anyone who opposes them. It isn’t just the chronically online or Russian bots who lead the attack either. As I was finalizing this article, Donald Trump took to Truth Social to suggest that Rosie O’Donnell, who was born in New York, be stripped of U.S. citizenship, solely because he doesn’t like her. Imagine how much higher the stakes are, when you do not have fame and residence in another nation (O’Donnell currently resides in Ireland) to fall back on, and the knowledge you possess comes directly from the job that allows you to eat and maintain a roof over your head. It makes sense that those who are willing to speak to journalists wish to remain unknown.
The end result of anonymous sources however, is often a quagmire that the reader is left to sort out.
In order to discern whether or not a story can be trusted, there are three main things you can look for.
First, is the publication itself reputable? Typically, the larger publications or wire services have pretty strict guidelines on when an anonymous source can make it into the story, or when they can be the only source to a story.
Second, is the journalist themselves credible? Sometimes, it is hard to tell. But, for more well known names in the industry, they might have a proven track record of integrity or journalistic ethics. If you know this person usually “gets it right”, than you probably safe in assuming that the unnamed sources are telling the truth, or at the very least have been well vetted, before publishing.
Finally, let it simmer. We all want to be the first to have information. It is human nature to form an opinion every time we consume media, and if relevant to share what we have learned. Yet, in this era of fast paced news cycles, sometimes the initial gut reaction isn't always the correct one. If you have read This Brave New World for any amount of time, you will notice a pattern. We are often behind the pack when reporting or speaking on matters. This is by design. Let the dust settle, let more facts come to light, and let the unnamed sources and the information they are sharing be better verified.
The use of unnamed sources has a place in journalism to be sure. As valid as the arguments are to support the use of anonymity, there are also valid criticisms against it as a norm. It is up to us, now more than ever, to use discernment when weighing the amount of trust we give to publications, journalists, and articles when the only source are those who are “close to the situation” and wish to remain anonymous.
Thank you for taking the time to read! I’m glad to have you here.
This Brave New World is a fully reader-supported publication, bringing a fresh perspective to the policies and politics that shape our world. If you would like to support the work I do in bringing up to date news and commentary, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you don’t like commitment, but would still like to support my work, please consider buying me a coffee
-Courtney