OT - Meta-journalism. "Anonymous sources"

As many know, the infamous Free Press report from Sunday, August 30, 2009 relied, by its own terms, entirely on anonymous sources. "Current and former players, and parents" were the subjects of interviews by Michael Rosenberg and Mark Snyder. They gave us a total number of players interviewed, but they never broke down how many "former" players were among the interviewees.

One player who says he was interviewed, but who never demanded anonymity, was Toney Clemons; Rosenberg refuses to confirm whether Clemons was an interview subject used in the story.

Two current players who were interviewed and whose quotes were used for attribution were Je'Ron Stokes and Brandin Hawthorne. Those two freshman players were, by Rich Rodriguez's general account, horrified at the way that their quotes were used and that they might have somehow hurt their team or their coach. Neither one intended to implicate the program in any wrongdoing. (The NCAA investigation essentially proved the freshmen and Rich Rodriguez right; the eventual 'major violation' allegations had nothing whatsoever to do with what the two freshmen had been quoted as saying.)

So we again consider the Free Press' decision to use anonymous sources, and only anonymous sources, for the August 30, 2009 story. The record is clear as to this much; Rosenberg and Snyder did not interview any coaches, nor any Compliance Services Office personnel, and no one from Atlhetic Department Administration. It seems to be a perfectly fair assumption, that the Freep writers did not want any information from those people, representing another side to the story. The Freep writers were satisfied with what they had gotten on their side of the story, and were ready to run with it. I presume that they wanted to wait until the last possible moment to spring their story on Bruce Madej and the Athletic Department. Proof of that is that Snyder and Rosenberg did in fact go to Madej's office on the Friday before the Sunday publication and essentially demand that if Michigan had any statement in response, they'd need it by the next day to publish it. Astonishing as that is, it is true.

So; this huge story, based entirely on anonymous sources... It raises some of the most significant and serious questions about anonymous-source ethics that any journalist or editor could ever imagine:

• What about the Freep anonymous sources? Did they have an angle, or an animus, toward Coach Rodriguez of Michigan?
• How many were actually "former" players?
• Under what sorts of conditions did they become "former" players?
• Do those possible biases make it incumbent to name the sources, or else not use them?
• And why not name them? What is the risk of harm, if any, to the interview subjects if they were named?
• If "former" players are involved, what is their relation to "current" players? What does the balance of current vrsus former players mean?
• Should extra care be taken in confirming the statements of anonymous sources who may have an antipathy toward Coach Rodriguez?
• What extra care was taken by the Free Press? What does the failure to interview any Compliance Services Office staff, or to request and/or review any Compliance Services Office documents (the Freep issued a broad FOIA the week after publication) say about the way that the Freep handled this?

For technical answers about the growing problems with anonymous-sourcing in major American newspapers, I suggest this newly-published article at Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/06/14/anonyous_contemp…

You'll see some very valuable links -- to Clark Hoyt, the "Public Editor" of the New York Times, to Andrew Alexander, the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, and to Jack Shafer of Slate.com, who is a terrific writer and one who never goes easy on his colleagues in journalism. Shafer tore into the Freep's own Mitch Albom after Mateen-gate.

What I found interesting was the criticism leveled at anonymous-source uses that were a lot more benign, and in many cases more excusable, than what Rosenberg and Snyder pulled with the Free Press.  The Free Press story serves as a kind of textbook-example of what not to do in utilizing anonymous sources.

Might the sources have a questionable interest or motivation?  Check.  Is the claim that sources "might fear retribution" unfounded?  Check.  Must there be independent corroboration of the source via a named source if possible?  Check.  Is anonymity being granted too easily, and not reluctantly, as a last possible measure of gaining needed information?  Check.  Did the sources absolutely demand anynomity or not?  Check.

In practically every imaginable way, Rosenberg, Snyder and the Free Press blew up the accepted rules for using anonymous sources.  As a result, they got much of the story wrong.  They went after Barwis as some kind of central figure of abuse of players' time.  They made wild claims of countless hours of extra time, and all-day Sunday abuses.  etc., etc., etc.

One might wonder about the Detroit Free Press' ombudsman in all of this, but the Freep doesn't have one. Your questions as to journalism ethics are to go to the big guy, Paul Anger, the Freep's publisher. Of course, it was Anger who, within a week of the August 30 Rosenberg-Snyder story, was defending his boys in print in the following Sunday edition of the Free Press.  So; no ethics, no accountability, no oversight, no 'complaints department.'

The more you look at the Free Press' use of anonymous sources in this particular instance, the more it appears to be wholly and inexcusably outside of all accepted norms for anonymous-sourcing.