One of the things that I have come to trust the least in journalism is any WSJ story that says "people familiar with the matter said"

Can anyone find another source for this?

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

When I speak to journalists, I am always on deep background. I’ll point them to people who can corroborate. But they’ll be off the record. Refusing anything but named sources in one’s information diet is fine, but most people I know who do this are remarkably inconsistent on the other axis, source quality, accepting names randos on Twitter as the word of god while rejecting respected journalism because Congressional staffers aren’t going to get themselves fired over a story.

	▲	Lerc 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't mind anonymous sources provided there is a clear assertion by the journalist that the source witnessed or had direct evidence of the thing being disclosed. Anything that, should the information be wrong, reveals that either the journalist or the source was lying. A source 'familiar with' does not reach that bar. "A source who wishes to remain anonymous witnessed..." Is acceptable. "Subject disclosed to an anonymous source...." With the current source decaration they could make any claim they wanted in the story. They coud declare alien invasion and when called out say there was a person on Reddit familiar with the situation, they were wrong about everything and had no credibility, but they were familiar with the situation. When the battle is to come up with the most significant claim the quickest, there needs to be stronger standards for the accuracy of the claim

▲

hn_throwaway_99 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why? Are there specific examples of WSJ reporting using unnamed sources that turned out to be false/misleading that led you to this conclusion? Unnamed sources carry some risks, sure, but it's obvious that few people would be willing to put their named to leaked info like this.

▲

fg137 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You don't have to trust WSJ's reporting, but most people do, including fellow journalists. Their track record is also solid.

(Their opinion section is of course a different matter.)

▲

jsnell 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is your objection specifically to the WSJ, or to the sources not being named in general?

If the former, yes, the are other outlets reporting this with independent sourcing (e.g. The Information).

▲

tonfa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What's the issue with WSJ? "people familiar with the matter" is standard lingo, means the journalist and editors have vetted the sources (multiple).

	▲	nijave 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		& many times the sources don't want to reveal their identity or go on record. A sort of tradeoff--to get the info they have to protect the source "You may not talk to the media" is pretty standard language in US employee contracts so obviously these people don't want to fireable offenses on the front page of the newspaper.