New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan have written major news stories – and a best-selling book – using anonymous sources with inside knowledge of White House policymaking.
Their book, “Regime Change,” and a recent story headlined “Behind the Scenes, Vance Gathered Unvarnished Views of the Iran War” have portrayed JD Vance as a cautious, responsible statesman worried about the consequences of the war with Iran.
Which makes me wonder whether Vance or one of his close aides is a key source and whether the reporters are helping Vance absolve himself of responsibility for the war as he eyes a presidential bid in 2028 or beyond.
The “Unvarnished Views” story was all about Vance, so the reporters normally would be obligated to seek his comment. Yet the story neither quoted Vance nor said he declined to comment. That’s strange, unless he was the source.
Let me be clear: I do not know the identities of Haberman and Swan’s sources. And there can be legitimate reasons to grant a source anonymity, especially when they’re inside a regime like Trump’s that punishes people who tell the truth.
But the problem is that when the press doesn’t identify its sources, readers can’t assess their motives.
Are they trying to expose government conduct they disapprove of? Planting a favorable spin about themselves or their boss? Befriending a journalist so they can ask for a favor later? Trying to make a rival look bad?
There are other possibilities too, such as “official leaks” in which the government floats a policy idea as a trial balloon without having to take responsibility for it.
Because of what we don’t know, information from unnamed sources should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
The New York Times has a policy that unidentified people can serve as news sources “only for information that we believe is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.”
But it’s hard to see how a July 24 NYT story met that standard. Headlined “How a Grieving Trump Decided to Back Lindsey Graham’s Sister for Senate,” the Times wanted us to believe that the world’s most famous narcissist was in personal grief over Graham’s death. What was that notion based on? According to the story, “Mr. Trump, who is not known to show emotion, appeared upset by the loss, two people said.”
That’s two unidentified people describing another person’s emotions in subjective terms. Was that really newsworthy? If so, what did readers gain from it? It’s clear what Trump gained – he was normalized in the New York Times.
Negotiations over anonymity don’t always happen via Signal or in whispers on park benches. Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, it’s become routine for White House officials to brief reporters under the condition that they not be identified.
Why? Sometimes it’s the “trial balloon” tactic mentioned above. Sometimes, officials want to talk with favored reporters in a small group to curry favor or because they trust them to report accurately. Sometimes, they want to disclose technical details ahead of a policy change so reporters can carefully gather the facts rather than hastily publish something inaccurate. And sometimes, anonymity provides deniability in case the officials themselves get something wrong.
Whatever the reason, this is the news media agreeing to hide the identities of public servants making news in a democracy. No wonder people think the press and politicians are in cahoots.
We’ve seen a lot of anonymously sourced reporting during the Trump era, for various reasons. Trump is constantly doing outrageous things in secret. And he lies more than his predecessors, so the media know they’re unlikely to get the truth from official channels. Also, Trump’s henchmen and henchwomen tend to be personally ambitious and morally bankrupt people who lack loyalty. The Obama White House didn’t have nearly as many leaks because the president’s staff was generally united in its policy mission.
In recent years, I’ve been impressed by how rarely an anonymously sourced story by a major news outlet is proven false. Most reporters are not sloppy about this. But still, the practice is vulnerable to abuse.
When I was an editor at the Chicago Tribune, I saw one of the abuses firsthand. A reporter had written a story with three pieces of information from three anonymous sources. Each source was described slightly differently. I asked the reporter who these people were, and he told me all three were the same person. He said the source wanted his comments to be presented that way to help mask his involvement.
I don’t think the reporter was consciously trying to trick the readers, but the story as written would’ve led readers to believe we had three sources when we had only one. We didn’t let the reporter do it.
I’m not saying the Haberman-Swan reporting poses similar questions. But its treatment of Vance has been so favorable to him that it raises a lot of eyebrows. Maybe the reporters think every word is true. Maybe every word is true. But in any case, we’re getting the pro-Vance spin because someone wants us to get it.
Haberman and Swan need to ask themselves whether their personally profitable access to the White House is worth the image boost they’re giving a fascist like JD Vance who wants to succeed Trump as dictator.
If they have a conscience, they should be thinking about that.
This week’s media atrocity
The “atrocity” I’m citing occurred in 2023, when the New York Times published a factual error tying an Alabama basketball player to a shooting. But what’s new is an excellent article by Bill Grueskin in the Columbia Journalism Review that lays out the series of mistakes that led to the paper’s first defamation trial loss in a U.S. court in more than 50 years. And it fits in with this week’s topic: The mistake involved misplaced trust in an anonymous source.
Four ways to support Stop the Presses
Subscribe for free.
Become a paying subscriber and get bonus features.
Urge your friends to subscribe.
Post our newsletter on social media.
We’re grateful for any and all of the four.
I think you're giving Haberman and Swan way too much leeway. Aren't these the same people, or Haberman anyway, who withheld valuable information during Drumpf's first term to later include it in a book? I wouldn't trust Maggie Haberman, especially if my life depended on it.
This is right to the point. A reader can't evaluate the veracity, biases, and intentions of an unnamed source. This has an absolutely corrosive effect on media trust. It's not enough for reporters to just say, Trust us.