The Time I Had An Anonymous Source

by Dan Lewis on Nov 13, 2011 11:56 AM EST

(Bumped from FanPosts. --Eric)

---

In the winter of 2002, I was still clinging to the dream of being a sportswriter. I had some moderate success but, well, not enough, and went to law school a few weeks later. But along the way, I ended up writing a ton of stuff, and was probably way ahead of the curve when it came to blogging -- I opened my now defunct and deleted one in 2001. (Man, I'm old.)

But that winter, something neat happened. A trend was beginning where a lot of sabermetrically-inclined fans were landing jobs, and I was decently well connected to this group. A friend landed a job with a big league team, then another, and another, and another. And suddenly, I had a bunch of people who, potentially, could be anonymous sources. It was a matter of time.

Right around mid-December of 2002, one of them gave me something. The Padres had just made a four year offer to Edgardo Alfonzo -- and it looked to be the best offer on the table. I ran it -- my first scoop, one which I thought would put me on the map. No one had even suggested that Alfonzo could land there.

And he didn't. Almost immediately after, Alfonzo signed a contract with the Giants. A three year deal, one facially worse than the one I had reported the Padres offered. Snakebitten, I was.

My source, again, was a friend of mine, someone who I have stayed in contact with over the years. He assured me, even afterward, that his info was true. Alfonzo either had already decided on San Fran or simply preferred the idea of being on a good team (the Giants won 100 games in Alfonzo's first season there) instead of a poor one (the Padres lost 98 that same year). Who knows.

In any event, the tip was true but ultimately worthless. And my source suffered no ill effects from it -- which is why I don't really care for anonymous sources. And neither should you.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 12 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Totally Agree

I have felt this way ever since reading about “EJ” – the kid in the wheelchair that couldnt get in to Camden Yards on opening day.

"RBI’s does measure something – Wins."
-Bayonne Mets Fan on MMO

by Dandy Salderson on Nov 11, 2011 9:24 AM EST reply actions

One of these days

there will be someone with the name “Anonymous Sources”

"..."

by Thaddeus Ballpheasant on Nov 12, 2011 2:56 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Could that be as bad as what someone I knew did?

Said idiot got the Steve-O tattoo of “your name” on his ass so he could wager you that he had “your name” on his body somewhere. Stone sober mind you.

"Intelligence is not a genetic predisposition. Think stupid!!"

by Wright of passage on Nov 13, 2011 10:56 PM EST up reply actions

Anonymous source within the organization

Is truly a sh!tty way to write a story. It could be a janitor or ticket broker or the GM or just simply made up. I hate when important news is linked to said source. It ususally just creates a story where none was.

by CervezaVerde on Nov 12, 2011 10:03 AM EST reply actions

Unlikely at best

It’d be a fireable offense if you did that

Learn something new every day: http://dlewis.net/nik

by Dan Lewis on Nov 12, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

unlikely what? fire who?

by CervezaVerde on Nov 12, 2011 9:01 PM EST up reply actions

The writer could get fired

There is a chance the editor or publisher will refuse to run a story unless the writer divulges their anonymous source, not in the article, but to them at least. There’s still a chance that they can be made up, but it’s probably extremely rare. The biggest problem is there is no accountability or even context. It’s possible the writers have taken things out of context just for a piece, and since no one knows who the source is, they don’t feel the need to set things straight.

by Evan_S on Nov 13, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

The writer would be fired

It’s beyond unethical. And it’d come out sooner or later.

Learn something new every day: http://dlewis.net/nik

by Dan Lewis on Nov 13, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

In other words

Fatcessa never knows what he is talking about

Mets, Jets, Devils, United Football League

by BlueChill on Nov 13, 2011 11:18 AM EST reply actions

I'm not inherently opposed to anonymous sources

Naming them isn’t likely to make them any more right. It would just make them less likely to talk, which may be the result some would most like.

I find something reporters do with sources—named or unnamed—to be a bit more dubious. Often, reporters have a clear position on a story. But, they don’t want to give their opinion officially for fear of showing a bias. So they’ll quote people, anonymous or named, often terribly out of context, to put their opinion into someone else’s mouth.

That ultimately has the same effect as forcing people to name sources. It just removes any incentive for people to speak openly and honestly.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Nov 13, 2011 2:10 PM EST reply actions 5 recs

It's not that

It’s that there’s a reason why the person wants to remain anonymous. Nothing’s final yet, and you’re only seeing part of the story.

Learn something new every day: http://dlewis.net/nik

by Dan Lewis on Nov 13, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions

The example in the above story isn't even the worst case.

At least there you got an idea of an offer. The worst is when you read articles like “an anonymous source says Team X is interested in Player Y” and then people make big jumping conclusions off that. That’s literally a non-story, and yet if you read sports reporting, especially around this time of year when everyone is just putting out feelers, it’s almost all you hear.

David Eckstein: so gritty they would eat him in the south for breakfast with some butter and sprinkle cheese.

by wrightHOF on Nov 13, 2011 2:32 PM EST reply actions

So the Marlins haven't signed Reyes, Pujols and Buerhle?

by Evan_S on Nov 13, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions

Twitter just said

That the Marlins DID sign Reyes. Fuck

by Joshuah on Nov 13, 2011 4:41 PM EST up reply actions

False

It was later retracted

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/33287582

Mets, Jets, Devils, United Football League

by BlueChill on Nov 13, 2011 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Ah Twitter

The height of journalistic integrity

by Evan_S on Nov 14, 2011 12:55 AM EST up reply actions

I kind of hate Twitter. It's made people hypocrites

People claim “WE WANT MORE INFORMATION AND WE WANT IT NOW”, but then when journalists get info (sometimes the only way they can get it is by anonymous source), they say “Y U NO REVEAL YOUR SOURCE??”

There is no hope.... there is no future....there is only GRISSIONZ

The 2011 Mets- Rock bottom: We haven't reached it yet

by Syler on Nov 15, 2011 5:04 PM EST up reply actions

I think people did that without twitter.

It does make that information more accessible, though.

by EricAColucci on Nov 15, 2011 8:10 PM EST up reply actions

I don't know, this all seems a bit facile

Most of the great moments in journalism history have been built on anonymous sourcing. Which doesn’t mean that the sourcing is thoughtless, or that there’s no vetting – some number of editors will know who the source is, and there may be extensive discussions about reputability. The more important the story, the more vetting.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying – your source should have suffered? I don’t see the least problem with this account, except that you didn’t get to enjoy a big scoop. The info, it seems, could well have been correct, and I’d argue that it’s fine to have it (even in this very unvetted form) in the public record – it provides some small support for the idea that athletes evaluate a lot of factors in making their signing decisions. I find that interesting, and I’m happy to know it, even as I know that the sourcing here is pretty weak, comparatively.

If there’s a problem, it’s that the public in general doesn’t know how to evaluate information. In the past, the heirarchy of news organizations meant that the public didn’t need to do so much evaluating. But now it’s a free-for-all, and that frustrates the public. But even so, there are pretty obvious indicators, for anyone who cares to pay even a little attention. The Reyes rumor, for example – as soon as I read it, mistermet is telling me that this guy is an idiot who has at least one big fail on his record; I look at the twitter and see reports of stronger sources countering his information. I have a brain, and I can use it.

I’m just not sure what you picture news reporting as, because if there are no anonymous sources, we’re left with more or less pretty faces reading press releases.

by SuperT on Nov 13, 2011 7:26 PM EST reply actions 3 recs

Most of the great moments in journalism aren't about sports transactions.

I really don’t think my experience applies outside of sports transactions, either.

Learn something new every day: http://dlewis.net/nik

by Dan Lewis on Nov 14, 2011 7:48 AM EST up reply actions

Ah, I didn't realize

But still, what’s the difference? Sports is big business. Would you say that reports about major personnel moves — possibly indicating a shift in focus or strategy — in, say, a major software company should be walled off this way?

by SuperT on Nov 14, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions

It's a good reminder that some sources' information might not be as good as they think.

But I think the recent backlash against anonymous sources is a little dishonest. Not that DanDot is doing this—he’s clearly arguing something else—but often when people hear something they don’t like, they use the anonymous source as an excuse to say it’s not real. It’s a way to disguise an emotional reaction as a rational one. If it’s good news—like if someone reported that Reyes was close to signing with the Mets, not the Marlins—few people would be saying “LOL ANONYMOUS SOURCE.”

Since most scouts and front office members are forbidden to talk to the media, using anonymous sources is pretty much the only way to report non-public information. Yeah, you should remember that these sources don’t always know everything, but I doubt many people want to wait for official press releases to find out what’s going on.

by EricAColucci on Nov 13, 2011 7:36 PM EST reply actions 1 recs