Anonymous Sources- the Modus Operandi of Fake News
It has become all too common, all too familiar in today’s news- the use of anonymous, or unnamed sources to put forth misinformation under the guise of objective reporting, such as…
“According to anonymous sources…”
or
“Unnamed sources have confirmed that…”
There are two types of “anonymous sources,” vastly different from one another:
The first type, all-too-rare by the way, is when an anonymous source is used because the legitimate source of a story would be in serious peril if his/her identity were revealed- loss of income, personal safety, employment status, etc.
The second type, all-too-frequently used, is a contrivance to substantiate specious claims by a supposed journalist whose “reports” are based on nothing more than personal bias and/or wishful thinking.
In an age where “facts” are in the eyes of the purveyor and “objectivity” becomes a matter of opinion, it has become increasingly difficult for a consumer of news to determine which type of anonymous or unnamed source is being used. Sadly, such ambiguity has become the source of cynicism and doubt, and why journalism has now become such a lowly-regarded profession- even lower than that of a politician.
There was a time, a generation ago, when there was a marked difference between news reporting and editorial commentary- the first based upon empirical evidence and multiple sourcing, and the latter based upon reasoned observation. In newspapers, actual news reporting appeared on the front pages while editorial commentary was relegated to the back two pages of a newspaper’s first section. In television and radio, the distinction between the two was clearly defined and delineated.
Sadly, in the age of 24/7 news coverage, that ship sailed a long time ago.
The most egregious example of this reality is best revealed in the CNN reporting that then-candidate Donald Trump knew in advance about the subject of a meeting between his son, Donald Trump, Jr. and Russian nationals, who supposedly had dirt on Hillary Clinton. The story is that CNN and others, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, was based upon supposed anonymous “sources” indicating that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen told the Mueller investigative team that the president knew about the meeting before it actually took place on June 26, 2016.
Never mind the fact that Mr. Cohen vehemently denied this allegation before a congressional committee in sworn testimony, earlier this year. Despite CNN’s insistence that Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, was not the anonymous source to the story, Mr. Davis revealed this week that he was indeed the source CNN used, and has since claimed that the assertion of prior knowledge on the part of President Trump has no basis in fact. Even in this denial, CNN insists that the story is still true, based on “numerous unnamed sources.”
The problem is that the “unnamed sources” to the story could only be Mr. Davis, who has indicated that the story is untrue, or Mr. Cohen, who has sworn under oath that there was no prior knowledge. Rather than admit the error in the report, which has now been recanted by the Washington Post, CNN is stubbornly sticking to their guns all in an effort to save the reputation of its own disreputable reporters, most notably Carl Bernstein. It was Bernstein who “made his bones” taking down former President Richard Nixon during the Watergate Scandal, and it is Bernstein who has since become nothing more than a partisan hack, bound and determined to do and say whatever it takes to take down the current President of the United States, Donald Trump.
When journalists leave the realm of objective news reporting and enter the realm of partisan propaganda, freedom of the press becomes irrelevant and its responsibility to keep the public properly informed is marginalized to the point of extinction.
Collectively, the entire array of the mainstream media regularly excoriates the President for lambasting “fake news” in his use of tweets. They even claim that his calling out “fake news” threatens freedom of the press, as provided for in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Yet, such claims are in and of themselves, more “fake news” because it is the media itself that imperils its own existence, with unbridled fiction based upon the dubious use of anonymous and/or unnamed sources when, in actuality, there are no such sources to begin with.
-Drew Nickell, 30 August 2018
© 2018 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.
author of “Bending Your Ear- a Collection of Essays on the Issues of Our Times”
now available at Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Bending-Your-Ear-Collection-Essays/dp/1633932907?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc
Signed and personalized editions now available at my website:
Follow my postings on the RSS feed: http://www.drewnickell.com/?feed=rss2