The Akward Gray Area Of Anonymous Sources Again

Today, John Harwood has felt some heat for those on "Rational online" websites after the White House pushed back on that idiot anonymous advisor who slammed bloggers on this weekend.

Now Harwood has told FDL's creator that the advisor was indeed an inside source and not an outsider.

I asked Harwood to clarify. He confirmed that the quote came from “an Obama adviser.” He did say that the comments weren’t specifically directed at “the LGBT community or the marchers,” but “referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo.”

Jane then adds her own two cents

This is what happens when journalists allow sources to take cheap shots from behind the cloak of anonymity granted for no good reason. The source doesn’t have to own it if it backfires, and the journalist gets stuck with the reputation for sloppy and erroneous reporting if they decide to dump it on you. Which is exactly what’s happening here.

NBC should release a statement either defending Harwood’s reporting on the matter or retract it. And the White House should identify Harwood’s source, because it doesn’t do much good to claim “we love you, we really really love you” and still protect the person who said it.

What a mess this is for a journalist. Harwood is certainly be excused by some as ginning up controversy by letting this advisor, whoever he or she was, spew this venom, with the cloak of being unknown.

It's a mess for everybody because you then have the White House trying to find out who in their inner circle said that. And you also have criticism coming on Hardwood, and even questions form some raising the possibility that maybe Hardwood fabricated the whole thing himself.

Though Harwood has his problems, he is one of the few in the neutral corporate media that I don't mind too much and isn't a hack, like some at Hackio are for example. He has a reputation of being very likeable from what I here, and has from time to time called the stupid "STUPID". And it's his job as a journalist to run a quote and protect anonymity from his source or risk losing that source for good (and practicing an utter no-no for any journalist, whether good or bad).

Now to be frank here, if that source has that type of mentality, then would I even to bother with him or her. Probably not, because that source doesn't speak for the whole agenda, but for their own personal feelings. Whether stupid or smart (and this was certainly the former than the latter), if an advisor is not speaking on the full, 100% position of the White House on an issue while giving you a quote, then either do one of these two things if you are a world class journalist in my mind.

You either don't even bother quoting it and putting it in your own back pocket. Or maybe even better for all parties, demand that this anonymous source not be so anonymous and have some courage and say his or her stupidity in full public.

If they are so big and bad, don't be a coward and hide under the cloth of anonymity. It only puts journalists in more awkward situations than they want to be in. And that makes everyone angry and upset over the whole entire situation.

Except that big mouth cowardless advisor. One thing you have to give Rahm Emmanuel credit for. At least he did his stupid hate fest of bloggers in public.