Originally Posted by
jloome
I (gahd some of you are going to hate this) actually respect his answer.
I was a print journalist for 24 years. For most of that, I had a rule -- and held it up in my newsroom when I was in charge -- that anonymous sources were not allowed unless justified by "whistleblower status", i.e. the immediate risk of losing their job.
That standard has been abandoned by the media. People just assume it's all done honorably but the reality is that most reporters now just grant anonymity whenever anyone "could get in trouble."
But that's a really low bar, a really low standard. People can "get in trouble" for saying anything slanderous, for example. Should they be protected for it? People can get in trouble for breaking their employer's confidentiality. If the break doesn't lead to a serious, important social consequences of some sorrt -- i.e. ending employer abuse -- should they automatically be protected for it?
No. It renders all information dubious, and also ignores our binary nature; it robs doubters of a reason to believe.
I know it's the norm now, but it's just lazy, shitty journalism for the most part. And that's cheaper. Reporters who knew their craft, knew how to get this kind of story with names actually attached, insisted on being paid properly. Most of them are now in corporate or government PR, being paid twice as much for half the work. Being a journalist is not the awesome sauce people seem to believe it is; you're largely trying to uncover shit people don't want uncovered, you're constantly demonized and you're paid half of what copywriters make half the damn time. Doing it well, putting in that kind of effort and time, requires compensation most places will no longer pay, and bodies for whom they can or will no longer budget.
Anonymity is not necessary on a humanistic basis unless the story actually has elements of profound unfairness to it. Someone simply being disgruntled while working for what amounts to an entertainment provider does not even come close to meeting that standard.
So ... yeah, I agree with him. The honorable thing is to not comment on it. Typically, these types of stories dance around the actual truth and present one or two agendas, which is why the longer they're around -- if people bother to follow up on them -- the further the final story diverges from the initial coverage. That's why within days you start getting different versions (Insigne did/didn't go to Austin, he does/doesn't hate Bob) etc. Because often the truth is elementally similar but far more nuanced.
I've been the guy that stuff was leaked to literally thousands of times over two decades. I can tell you right now, the number of times the leaker didn't have a personally beneficial agenda -- rather than a public concern -- could probably have been counted on my fingers and toes. But when you're being presented evidence, their agenda is often irrelevant to the facts on paper or in evidence.
When it's just statements and opinions, that's a different story. For all we know this was torqued massively out of proportion. Or based on squad banter in which guys show how big their balls are by exaggerating the fuck out of their exploits, concerns and planned course of action. If I had to choose a trait common to professional athletes, emotional maturity certainly wouldn't top the list.
None of this means Fede was wrong to bitch about tactics. But equally, it doesn't mean everything in that article was true either.