AP: equal opportunity whoring

On the flip side of Ed Henry throwing out unnamed talking points benefiting who knows who (but certainly not the public), we've got the AP shilling for someone on the other side:

AP sources: Obama in TV ad for Coakley

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, January 18, 2010; 11:53 AM
WASHINGTON -- Democratic officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama is featured in a new TV ad for endangered Democratic candidate Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

The ad comes one day before Tuesday's special election, and one day after the president appeared at a rally with the Democrat in Boston. Coakley is in a tight race with Republican Scott Brown, and the White House is pulling out all the stops to try to keep the seat in Democratic hands.

He's also filmed a Web video and taped automated phone calls urging Democrats to turn out to vote for Coakley Tuesday.

Officials disclosed the existence of the ad on the condition of anonymity because it was not yet on the air.

That last line (emphasis added) is downright hilarious-- it acknowledges on the one hand that a reason should be given for granting anonymity, but then goes on to give a reason that is complete bullshit.

Canadian Press: we matter, really!

Just a run of the mill "we're insiders!" article from The Canadian Press

Harper set to shuffle the deck: sources

Updated: Sun Jan. 17 2010 12:12:36

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Speculation is growing that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will shuffle his cabinet this week -- possibly as soon as Tuesday.

Insiders say about five ministers will change jobs, and no one will be elevated from the Conservative backbenches.

One post that needs filling is veterans affairs after Greg Thompson resigned yesterday, saying he had accomplished all he set out to.

Sources say Harper could give the job to a junior minister of state.

Anyone at all who follows Canadian politics knows that nothing, absolutely nothing, escapes the cabinet without Harper's approval, so this article amounts to a freebie press release for the Conservatives.

Why can't the "sources" be named? We're not told.
What good comes from granting anonymity? I can't possibly guess at the inner-mechanizations of the Cs. Obviously, they didn't want names attached to this release for some reason, presumably a reason that serves their political purposes, and that's good enough for CP, evidently.

Ed Henry: trust me!

From CNN's The Ticker:

Sources: Obama advisers believe Coakley will lose
Posted: January 17th, 2010 04:22 PM ET

From CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry
Washington (CNN) - Multiple advisers to President Obama have privately told party officials that they believe Democrat Martha Coakley is going to lose Tuesday’s special election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for more than 40 years, several Democratic sources told CNN Sunday.

The sources added that the advisers are still hopeful that Obama's visit to Massachusetts on Sunday - coupled with a late push by Democratic activists - could help Coakley pull out a narrow victory in an increasingly tight race against Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.

However, the presidential advisers have grown increasingly pessimistic in the last three days about Coakley's chances after a series of missteps by the candidate, sources said.

At 4:59pm I submitted the following comment to the site:

Why were these "sources" granted anonymity?

I'm a reporter, now an editor. And this kind of anonymous sourcing is a discredit to my profession.

Frankly, this kind of inside baseball nonsense makes me suspect that you're simply making the whole thing up.

You should be ashamed.

Soon after, the original Henry post was amended, with a real name added, as follows:

But White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN: "The President is in Massachusetts today because he believes Martha Coakley is the right person for the job and indeed will be the next senator from Massachusetts."

Of course the named person contradicts the unnamed sources, so what are we to think of this?

Regardless, my comment didn't make it through the moderating process.

Tim's rules for using anonymous sources

Hello!

I'm starting this blog to call attention to what I consider the improper use of anonymous sources in the media. The use of unnamed sources can sometimes serve useful purposes, but increasing it's merely a tactic employed to avoid doing real work.

As I told my friend Parker Donham:

Tim Bousquet’s rules for using anonymous sources:

1. The information gained through granting anonymity is not otherwise available. Or, put another way, granting anonymity is not a shortcut to doing the hard work of gathering solid information and good reporting.

2. The anonymous source must have something to lose, should anonymity not be given: loss of a job, etc.

3. Using an anonymous source must result in some positive public good. “Spinning” someone’s view is not a positive public good.

Bousquet adds:

When I was a reporter at a daily in the states, I had a publisher who wouldn’t allow me to use anonymous sources at all. At the time, I felt that policy unduly constrained me, but I soon discovered it made me a better reporter: I couldn’t just put any old shit out there, I had to document everything, peg every assertion to a named source or document, etc. Mostly, as anonymity is used today by much of the press, it’s an excuse for lazy reporting.

My aim is to start posting examples of the worst of anonymous sourcing. If I have time, I'll try to contact some of the editors and reporters directly for comment.

I hope you enjoy my efforts.