Unless The Source Has A Name, Don’t Buy It

Did you hear about the Blazers latest trade proposal? They’re going to send Luke Babbitt and Chris Johnson to Orlando for Dwight Howard.

I know because I heard it from a very reliable source.

Another source told me the Blazers were going to send assistant coach Bernie Bickerstaff to Boston for Rajon Rondo.

That source is a trustworthy one too.

But neither of them wanted me to use their name.

And this is the problem with trade rumors in the world of television tickers, tweets and texts: There’s little accountability.

Trail Blazer beat writer Jason Quick, however, goes the other way. Earlier this week, Quick tweeted “Tis season for ‘sources’ but I will stick to my pledge from last summer to name all sources. If they won’t put name behind it, I won’t use it.” For those of us who respect accountability in the media, thank you Jason Quick.

When I began as a reporter, I was told all sources of information must be attributed. I was told there is no such thing as an unnamed source.

And for good reason.

Anyone can be a source.

Let’s use an example.

Say it was my mom who informed me about the Bickerstaff-for-Rondo deal.

I trust my mom. Because she was the first person I heard mention this trade, she is my source of information.  Because she’s my mom, I trust her. That makes her a trustworthy source.

Does it make her a trustworthy source on Trail Blazer trade information? No.

But in the court of law, it would be hard to argue against me saying she is a source who is reliable. And by stating that “a reliable source tells me the Blazers are going to trade Bickerstaff for Rondo,” I am covered.

I did not state it was a reliable source within the Blazers organization who told me this, just a reliable source. It may seem like a slight difference, but it is the difference between the truth and the whole truth.

For a reader to find credibility in a source of information, that source needs to be willing to put his or her name behind his or her statements.

Let’s say I make this claim in an article: A very reliable source with close ties to the Portland Trail Blazers organization said Portland is shopping Babbitt and Johnson for Howard. Now that source could be anyone from one of the Blazer ball boys to Mike Rice to Nate McMillan’s mother. All of those people have close ties to the Blazers. Are any of them more reliable than the other?

But if I say Mike Rice tells me the Blazers are in negotiations with the Magic for Howard, that carries a little more weight. Rice is with the team on all of its road trips. He talks with the players, talks with the coaches and presumably is in the know.

A ball boy, on the other hand, would be better left telling us who was hot from the three-point line in warm-ups.

All big-time journalists have their sources. They need them. Otherwise they’ll be left in the dust as their competitors break stories ahead of them. They need to respect those sources otherwise they’ll lose those sources. However, they also need to name them. Otherwise they’ll lose credibility.

In response to Quick’s tweet, one fan said he cared more about interesting news updates than Quick’s personal pledges. That fan doesn’t respect Quick’s journalistic integrity. He doesn’t respect Quick’s quest for reporting facts instead of rumors. That fan tweeted “Please provide us with some info. If you don’t someone will.”

He is right – someone will. Someone in the blogosphere who is not with the team on a day-to-day basis will create a scenario in which the Blazers are in the market for Howard or Rondo. While these scenarios are fun to read, they carry little weight.

Unless you are receiving this information from someone in the know who is willing to put their name and reputation on the line to demonstrate there is something behind the rumor, you’ve got nothing more than bar-room banter.