• Home
• /
• Opinion

It's troubling that sources in the news are nameless

Sources. Nameless sources. Sounds shady. Anonymous sources. Sounds like an oxymoron, but it's not. Only morons would blindly believe what these sources say. I mean, it's time to put our thinking hats on and stop being intellectually crazy (or lazy) by following the herd.
Let me begin by saying that objectivity is being hurriedly shredded on the Net in the race for eyeballs. I get it, online media is a tough space these days. Listicles and click-bait may have run their course. So how about bringing powerful people down in the cause of investigative journalism-activism?
You get to hate someone who is easy to hate and dig up some real and imaginary dirt on him or her. That's all it takes to get things moving for 'bombshell' reports like the one Buzzfeed put out last week that later turned into a damp squib.
Now, I don't hate Buzzfeed. I scan through their viral '20 random things to do' lists when I have nothing better to do (which is rare). I've tried hard over the years but can't take the site seriously, even after they tried to get serious about news under Ben Smith, the current editor. What puts me off about the site is their agenda, which I do not subscribe to and every right thinking individual should be wary of. What happened to rationality and logic? The fact is, curation has taken over curiosity. And the media is feeling the heat, with their bottomlines being eroded as the march of Big Tech and social media continues. People are often inclined to make up their mind after some online activity (like reading) which may be strong in sentiment. This could result in scant under-standing and a lack of nuanced judgement. The trouble with virtual, viral reporting is this: it entails little responsibility for what is posted. The website owners simply take it down if criticisms start to sting. This brings me to the core issue that has confronted me after reading some disturbing reports over the last months starting with Claas Relotius, an award-winning German reporter for Der Spiegel who made up stories and invented protagonists in his reports over seven years.
I am met with more questions than answers. Are anonymous sources objective? Do they pursue the facts like they should? Who are their face-less sources? Are they reliable? And why should you and I believe them? Some online-only media think curation and cut-and-paste will suffice. Fact checking is left to the original creator (who may be wrong) but is for-gotten down the line. Oh, what a tangled web! Having said that, I was wondering if you know a guy named Jason Leopold. If his work doesn't ring a bell, the buzz is that he's been at it for some 10 years now - in the 'sources' business. Yes, the ones that may or may not exist. He 'broke' a story last week on Buzzfeed about US President Donald Trump asking his former aide Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. The report was co-written with Anthony Cormier. The sources (no marks for guessing) were two faceless, nameless federal law enforcement officials, and the story went like this, and I quote from the site: "And even as Trump told the public he had no business deals with Russia, the sources said Trump and his children Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. received regular, detailed updates about the real estate development from Cohen, whom they put in charge of the project."But Robert Mueller, the special counsel who hasn't spoken much since the start of the investigation into the president's alleged ties to Russia, made a rare statement denying the report. Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller said: "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterisation of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate.
"Buzzfeed, which carried the denial, said Mueller's office "disputed aspects" of the report. So I mailed the reporter Leopold for a comment. I didn't get a reply. Why am I not surprised? That's because I remember sending the site a mail seeking their comment on a story they did in January 2016. The report back then was based on documents, 'reportedly' compiled by a 'former British spy', who 'claimed' that Moscow was 'cultivating, supporting and assisting' Trump for five years. It had details of the president's "personal obsessions and sexual perversions" and suggested that Russia had control over him.
"BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government," the site said in a note. Again, nameless and anonymous sources made for useless material without corroboration and clarification from the source.
Buzzfeed had egg on its face then. It's done it again with the latest 'bombshell'.
Finally, I did some research (or a Google search) on Leopold, and this is what the Columbia Journalism Review said of him in 2006: "If there is one common theme that emerges from all of Leopold's journalistic snafus, it's that none of it seems to be his fault." Leopold has worked for the Los Angeles Times, Dow Jones, Al Jazeera and Vice News, but much of his career has been tainted by scandals. Back in 2002, Salon.com removed a story by Leopold over plagiarism charges. In 2006, he got a story wrong about former president George W. Bush's aide Karl Rove in Truthout.org. He has earned the nickname 'FOIA terrorist' for his relentless pursuit of information under the American Freedom of Information Act. I salute him for that. I am all for this spirit of activism that has revived journalism despite the media business being in the dumps. Eyeballs are great, the numbers are looking good, but let's not close our eyes - and understanding - to nameless sources and leaks. Think about people and faces when you read the news. Anonymity sucks.
- allan@khaleejtimes.com