The hypocrisy of anonymous sources

I’m a big fan of articles – newspaper, magazine, on-line, wherever. I’ve always been a non-fiction over fiction guy. Love learning new things, being in the know, finding out what’s going on. But recently this trend towards using “unnamed sources” is getting out of hand. It’s not that there are unnamed sources cited in articles- that has been around as long as I can remember. It’s the way they are presented. The way the articles seem to now almost relish in the secrecy of it. Check out this LA Times blurb about Michael Jackson’s memorial:

The discussions over Michael Jackson's public memorial have now focused on a possible Tuesday service, though sources stress that the Jackson family has not made a final decision.

Five sources, who are familiar with the planning process but spoke on the condition that they not be named, said authorities are drawing up plans for a massive law enforcement deployment Tuesday morning.

And that’s a tame one. My favorite is when an article says “according to a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to comment”! That one blows me away! So not only is this person talking when they are not supposed, the author is actually acknowledging that they shouldn’t be saying it.

I’m not a strict rule follower in every situation, but this is going too far. I just did a Google News search for "anonymity because they are not authorized" and it produced 235 articles. And we’re not talking the TMZ variety in the gossip world. These are US government sources, businessmen, high ranking officials – people who are fully aware that what they are doing is not right. People who can’t use the “I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to say that” argument.

So why do they do it? Sure, there’s the whistle blower argument- and I have no problem with that. But these are not whistle blowers helping injustice see the light of day. One article is about a new wireless technology, one is about a court case and one is about the Treasury Department. These are run on the mill, normal stories that would have been interesting enough alone. But with the added “anonymous” source take on a new meaning.

I actually think it goes back to middle school – the whole “I know something you don’t know” argument. Was there ever anything that made you want to punch someone in the face more than that argument? It’s like calling dibs, nothing you can do about it- unless you were bigger than the person who called it. But that’s not the point – the point is the growing human nature to reveal secrets on a massive scale. I’d venture a bet that most of these “anonymous sources” love reading the article once it is printed and knowing they are the nameless helper.

Of course, with the 24-hour news cycle we have now - comprised of cable news networks, websites, blogs, podcasts and more- the need to fill that news space is constantly growing. Which means more people are looking for information- and someone who wants to supply it can get their 15 minutes of fame, even if it’s anonymously. I’ll continue to get turned off when I see the “anonymous source who spoke on the condition of anonymity” line, but I’m sure it’s not going away.