I whipped this up quickly in a comment in Sunday Talk, and folks seemed to like it, so here it is with a few changes in a diary form.
Even if a source isn't anonymous, much of this guide is relevant.
The guide below the fold...
- Important to note the description of the anonymous source. If it's just an "aide," then, it could really be anyone. If it's someone working at the White House, a reporter will almost always note that it's a WH staffer. If it's a "source close to the negotiations," it could be someone working on the Hill, a lobbyist, or consultant in the know. There are other possibilities, but those are the biggies. Simply put, a quote indicates something different depending on where it's coming from.
- Ever play telephone? Well, information that gets passed on from one person to the next can get twisted. One should always consider this.
- Sometimes a reporter just completely mishears from a source, even if the info is handed on a silver platter. (Been there.)
- Narrative watch. Reporters try to fit decent bits of information into a pre-determined narrative or spin, so it's important to suss out fact from fiction. It's important to figure out what's concrete and what is merely speculation.
- Some reporters are better than others, but regardless of reputation, it's a bad idea to always dismiss or always believe any reporter or publication. Even a quote from a lousy publication can reveal a lot. (This goes for on the record and anonymous quotes. During the presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton gave a speech, and reporters had the text of the speech. I remember at least one reporter completely mischaracterizing her speech.)
- Some reporters are truly idiots. Some are trying to fuck with readers. So, with that in mind, step back before you jump on a report (good or bad).
- When evaluating an article/source, does it make sense given what we know to be 100% true? (And no, just because some one has repeated a false statement a gazillion times, does not make it true.)
- Always make sure to read articles for yourself, and not just how it's used in diaries or the front page.
- Don't get all your news from blogs. I think I've gotten a better idea of the state of play during this health care reform battle when I went looking for what specific members were saying not to national reporters but to local ones. Also, there are some national publications and articles that don't get cited as frequently. You'll be better able to figure out what is really going on with regard to anonymous sources if you have more concrete information at your disposal.
- Does the reporter/blogger have a good general understanding of how things work? Not just from a procedural standpoint legislatively, but also politically. There's a lot of "If X happened, then, Y must be happening, too" ... it's very simplistic reasoning, and it's a red flag . There are a lot of nuances, and if someone is coming to the same simplistic conclusions all the time, then, that person is unlikely to properly place what they hear into context.
- "Newspaper A, Blog B, Report from Cable News Channel C, and Newspaper D all say the same thing! There are FOUR different sources!" Eh, maybe, but it's more likely ONE source gave the same story to four different reporters.
- Reasons someone may be leaking: trial balloon, something got out by accident, leaker wants to frame the story in a way to deflect blame or scrutiny away from them and towards an innocent party, etc.
- A paraphrase is not a quote.