5/30/17 – Anonymous Sources


Anonymous sources are sometimes used in news reporting.

Here’s what’s happening behind the headlines.

The Washington Post has come under intense scrutiny for frequently using anonymous sources.  We have to take the paper at its word these sources actually exist.  And are credible.  Some news organizations have earned that trust.

But has the Post?

Consider that in the six months since Election Day, the Post published nearly 350 articles and columns claiming anonymous sources have said something about President Trump.  Nearly two a day.

Now make no mistake.  The Post – just like every news organization – should scrutinize those in power and hold them accountable.  We welcome the Post’s newfound interest in executive branch accountability especially since it slept through the previous eight years.

But consider these untrue Post allegations based on anonymous sources.

The Post claimed the Deputy Attorney-General threatened to resign over Comey’s firing.  Not true.

The FBI requested more money to carry-out its Russia investigation, said the paper. The Acting FBI Director testified under oath no such request was ever made.

Trump divulged intelligence sources to the Russian ambassador according to anonymous sources not at the meeting.  That allegation is false according to the only named source who was at the meeting.

I could go on.

But know this.  As long as it relies exclusively on anonymous sources, the Washington Post is just not credible.

Follow Behind the Headlines on Twitter at @BehindTheHead.

Follow Mark on Twitter at @MarkHyman.

Join us on Facebook.