Update: Wall Street Journal reporter David Enrich has responded. I have added his response below.
Jay Rosen is absolutely right to call out the Wall Street Journal on its inexcusable use of unnamed sources in the Goldman Sachs story.
Who is the first of the 5 W’s, one of journalism’s fundamentals. You need a compelling reason to withhold a source’s identity, and the Wall Street Journal had no such reason to withhold names in reporting the Goldman Sachs response to a New York Times op-ed piece about the ethics and culture of Goldman Sachs by Greg Smith.
Here’s one of the passages in question:
“We disagree with the views expressed, which we don’t think reflect the way we run our business,” a Goldman spokeswoman said. “In our view, we will only be successful if our clients are successful. This fundamental truth lies at the heart of how we conduct ourselves.”
There is no reason in the world to withhold the name of that source. In a response to Rosen, Francine McKenna tweeted:
@ryanchittum @jayrosen_nyu I’ve lately, on sensitive stories, had spokespeople say, “attribute a company spokesperson,” not them by name.
— Francine McKenna (@retheauditors) March 15, 2012
The answer to such a request should be: “That doesn’t meet our standards for granting confidentiality. Your choice is to be in this story with your name attached to your comment or not to be in the story.” Do you think for a minute that Goldman Sachs would have not given that self-serving quote to the Wall Street Journal with the spokeswoman’s name if the Journal had responded with some backbone?
The argument that this is a routine practice isn’t true. And it’s an inadequate excuse. News organizations quote thousands of spokespeople from government, business, education and other organizations ever day. (My son, Mike, used to be spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel. Even though Hagel retired three years ago, I still found more than 4,000 hits when I Googled Mike’s name and “Hagel”. He was routinely quoted speaking for Hagel.) If some financial reporters grant confidentiality routinely, that doesn’t excuse the practice any more than routine lying by politicians excuses their lies.
Update: See the response below from Journal reporter David Enrich. He says the statement was on the record, but the Journal did not use her name. Puzzling to me, but since journalists responded in defense of the practice of not quoting spokespeople, I have not rewritten the passage above.
The second passage Rosen cited is even more egregious:
Mr. Smith described himself as an executive director and head of Goldman’s U.S. equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
A person familiar with the matter said Mr. Smith’s role is actually vice president, a relatively junior position held by thousands of Goldman employees around the world. And Mr. Smith is the only employee in the derivatives business that he heads, this person said.
Smith was courageously on the record, risking his career and future employment in his devastating disclosures about the attitudes and practices at Goldman Sachs (which, as Matt Taibbi noted, are consistent with findings of a U.S. Senate investigation). It is unconscionable for journalists and news organizations to allow anonymous sniping in response to such an on-the-record statement. The Journal reporter, David Enrich, should have told the “person familiar with the matter” that such sniping has no credibility without a name and doesn’t belong in the story without a name. (I have sent Enrich a draft of this post, inviting response. He asked for “a few minutes” to consult with his bosses. I waited an hour and half before posting. If he responds, I will add his response.) Update: See Enrich’s response below.
Whether the “familiar” person used the name or not, such a claim should not be published without documentation. If this person knows this detail about Smith’s place in the organization, he or she certainly has access to a Goldman Sachs directory or org chart that would bolster the claim. A person’s title or role, and the number of people he or she supervises, and the number of Goldman Sachs vice presidents are matters of fact. Reporters should document those facts, not attribute them to gutless, unidentified people. If this person lacks the courage to put his or her name with the purported facts, the reporter should treat the information as a tip to be verified or refuted by further reporting, not as contentions of a nameless coward.
Reporters should always ask about and examine the motives of sources requesting confidentiality. Two possible reasons someone might not want to associate their names with “facts” they are telling a reporter are that the person is lying or that the person is unsure of the facts. In either case, the reporter should get to the real facts, rather than being the coward’s conduit to the public. A reporter’s most important question, whether a source is on the record or off, is, “How do you know that?” If a person unwilling to give his or her name can provide documentation, you don’t need the name. And if the person can’t provide documentation, you shouldn’t publish the facts until you can verify the claim yourself.
The first point of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics is “Seek truth and report it.” You should only grant confidentiality in a quest to find the truth. Granting confidentiality to cowards too often leads to reporting of lies.
Unnamed sources have played important roles in journalism. The Washington Post’s Watergate reporting could not have been accomplished without granting confidentiality to Mark Felt (“Deep Throat”) and many more courageous sources. Many other outstanding chapters in journalism history have relied on confidential sources. But excessive use of unnamed sources hurts the credibility of our profession. Journalists need to grant confidentiality sparingly to whistle blowers and to government, military and business sources who courageously disclose important information that serves the public interest.
But we should seldom or ever grant confidentiality to those in power. Confidentiality should be a last resort we offer to persuade people good motivations not to speak to override those motivations, not a cloak we give to people who are eager to speak without accountability.
Spokespeople are paid to speak for their companies. I cannot envision a case when a spokeswoman should be given confidentiality when speaking for her company (perhaps if she was giving me a detail the company didn’t want out, such as something confirming Smith’s account). Anonymous opinions should be left for the comment sections (if anywhere). People in power should not be granted confidentiality, especially to snipe at the less powerful. And statements of fact should be verified or refuted, not parroted.
Jay was right to call this practice “pathetic.”
Update: Here is Enrich’s response:
1. The Goldman spokeswoman’s comment – which came from a widely disseminated prepared statement — was on the record. That is not an anonymous source. We simply didn’t name her. Other media outlets handled this similarly. Buttry response: Wow! I don’t understand why you would not name someone who was on the record.
2. As for the “person familiar with the matter” quoted in the same blog item, it is true that it would have been better to have that on the record.
3. The blog item in question was a short, quick reaction piece. It was a small part of the WSJ’s extensive coverage of this resignation letter in blog posts, news articles, video segments and other media throughout the day. The final version of our main story, which appeared on page C1 of today’s US print edition as well as prominently online, did not include this sourcing or information.
Reminds me of all the Cowardly Anon Nitwits, otherwise known as “trolls”, who leave snide remarks on articles and blog posts that detract from the conversation.
I would have expected far better from the WSJ.
LikeLike
I RT’d Jay tweets all day yesterday. He’s right. No balls=no journalism. Without sources, a story is gossip. If a source must be protected, that is a sidebar. WSJ found a quick, easy way to damage their credibility.
LikeLike
This type of journalism leaves me wondering whose pocket the journalist is in. This smacks of cronyism. Yes, they had to print the story, but the sniping damages Smith’s credibility, which makes you wonder why they even printed it. Sounds like the WSJ is definitely in the pro-Goldman-Sachs camp, which makes them less trustworthy in the eyes of the discerning public.
Also, if those nasty little side comments about Mr. Smith damage his reputation, couldn’t there be some libel/slander suits down the pike?
This type of journalism always leaves readers wondering whether there are some backroom dealings between the WSJ and Goldman-Sachs? I wouldn’t be surprised in the least, not the way G-S does things.
This is just awful. Guess Mr. Smith didn’t expect to be hung out to dry. Wonder if he’ll ever talk to the WSJ again–or if anyone else will, either. It makes informants and sources less likely to talk, not more, in my opinion, if they know they’re going to be discounted this way in print.
Sure does make you wonder.
I’ll be stepping off my soapbox now!
LikeLike
Oh, I expect he knew he’d be hung out to dry.
LikeLike
By the WSJ though? That’s depressing. Who would want to talk to them, then?
LikeLike
Well, people who don’t want their names published might be eager to talk to the WSJ. That’s part of the problem.
LikeLike
“Anonymous opinions should be left for the comment sections.” Only in the digital world. And now that we’ve gotten rid of Topix, we have a lot fewer of them there, too. I’m proud to say that our Opinion page has only knowingly allowed one anonymous comment to be printed in at least the last six years, and that was from a rape victim who wanted to comment about the trial of her attacker. We didn’t name her in the news stories, so we granted the request.
LikeLike
When I blogged about this before, I got some reasonable responses from PR pros that their tradition is to keep their name out of the story–it’s about the client, not the agency. (These people also agreed that if PR reps don’t request anonymity upfront, it’s their own damn fault.)
But in this case, we’re talking about GS employees who are paid to speak for the company and nobody else. Rosen’s update suggests that Enrich accepted their faceless, amorphous trash-talking as a default setting. In other words: Great job comforting the comfortable.
– RP
LikeLike
I am more bothered by the explanation that the Journal just decided not to use the name (as you said, a default setting) than if the source had asked for confidentiality. I don’t care whether the PR person is on the payroll or a contractor. Who is the first question we learned in journalism, and you answer it unless you have a compelling reason not to. Period. I have not heard a compelling reason in this case.
LikeLike
I’m an editor on the Metro desk at the Houston Chronicle. Last week I handled a story in which the reporter quoted a spokesperson for a company without naming the person. I asked the reporter if the person had refused to be quoted by name; he said no, he just hadn’t bothered to include it. I told him to add the name. The debate about off-the-record sources will outlive all of us, but It is never appropriate to withhold a source’s name when the source is on the record.
LikeLike
Wow, talk about shooting fish in a barrel. Out of the WSJ’s total coverage, you and Jay Rosen pick a SINGLE blog post that 1) had not gone through the WSJ editing process 2) did not make it into print or the final web story 3) was written on an extreme deadline to get the Goldman reax out. And you use it to what, paint a picture of the Wall Street Journal’s standards on using anon sources? Despite your constant defense of bloggers, I don’t see you attacking other blogs — remember, we are talking about a blog here — with the same vim and vigor. Standards.
LikeLike
Wow, this one has me puzzled. Your closing point is “Standards,” and yet you spent most of your comment apparently trying to excuse low standards. My “constant defense of bloggers”? I’m trying to remember when I ever justified bad journalism with the just-a-blog excuse you cite here. Journalists should do quality journalism in any format. The fact that this was a blog does not change the sourcing standards that Jay and I cite. And, I should note (and did, with a tweet embedded in the post), way too many journalists have defended the decision not to identify the spokeswoman.
LikeLike
Funny, you’re the only one here without a name.
I didn’t paint any general picture of the Wall Street Journal’s policy. I wrote about what the Wall Street was saying to users by sourcing its story in that way. Thus, the title, “I’ve got some hilariously pathetic sourcing by the Wall Street Journal for you.”
LikeLike
“Journalist should do quality journalism in any format.” Yes, on this we can all agree. Why then are you not making a point to criticize blogs that consistently use anonymous sources or worse? In the totality of the WSJ coverage of the Goldman resignation and fallout,you focus on one rather inconsequential blog post. Why?
“way too many journalists have defended the decision not to identify the spokeswoman.” that’s just silly. It’s a canned statement from the company. We would all be better off if the standard was “the company said in a prepared statement.” Because the alternative is attributing those statements to an individual as if they were original thoughts and not the product of a corporate machine. Instead, we get press release quotes attributed to a CEO when, in fact, they were written by the public relations department. Is that what you want?
Jay Rosen: “funny, you’re the only one here without a name.” Robert is a name. My last name is Tilton. Does that make a difference? I could say, “funny, you look like the frog recently discovered in NYC,” which you do, but it wouldn’t detract from your point.
“I didn’t paint a general picture of the Wall Street Journal’s policy.” Interesting, because what you wrote was this:
“According to the Wall Street Journal, a Goldman spokesperson needs to remain a mystery source when her message is: We disagree that we’re bad people. We’re actually very good people! Because that’s not something we should expect her to attach her name to.”
That’s more than suggesting that you’re addressing the Wall Street Journal’s policy. While you knew well that it was a blog post that didn’t pass through editing channels that may have revised it to meet the paper’s policy. It gets worse. You say the practice is “ninety percent routine for them.” I’m not exactly sure what you mean. But I guess you’re saying that 90 percent employ the practice? Or don’t find it objectionable?
Either way? How did you arrive there? And how can you seriously say you’re no painting “any general picture of the Wall Street Journal’s policy” while generalizing about the entire industry?
Now, of course, this is silly, right. I just took one line from one blog post. It’s probably lacking context. Sound familiar?
LikeLike
I would certainly prefer quoting a company statement to an unnamed spokeswoman. But that’s not what the Journal did.
LikeLike
This problem isn’t limited to business writing. Some journalists seem to have forgotten that their job is to inform their readers, not placate the egos of the companies (or government agencies or sports teams) they cover. Reporters can’t achieve that goal if they offer blanket anonymity to “spokespeople” who don’t deserve it.
LikeLike
The thing that matters in this case is the what, not the who. Goldman is the real who, not the spokesperson. Goldman in its corporate personhood has made a statement, and the audience is clear on what it said. The spokesperson is inconsequential in the flow of the story, and for journalists trained in classic print environments, her name means words that will have to be cut someplace else. I expect your son was not always quoted by name, either, even if he didn’t ask for anonymity.
The second quote warrants criticizing. That person should be on the record, especially since the comment appears to undermine Smith’s status in the firm as a lofty-sounding ‘executive director.’
If, though, we’re going to encourage papers to be more transparent in their reporting, we might want to focus on finished stories, and not an update made in the heat of reporting.
Here’s what the Journal ran:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304692804577281252012689294.html
In it, we see the spokeswoman quote replaced by comments from a memo put out under the name of Goldman’s top two executives. It appears, since neither is quoted in any other context, that the Journal did not get access to Blankfein or Cohn. It appears they had to turn to other sources. Banks and other financial services firms generally do not talk much to the press (it is maddening how many stories about banks cite sources who don’t work at banks). Goldman is notoriously close-mouthed even for a bank, and it is possible that naming such sources would be equivalent to burning the source, because it would cost him or her a job. That could also cost the reporter the ability to get information in the future. So the question becomes, did the reporter trade anonymity for information that was useful, or did the reporter get used, by providing the source a shield?
There is another representative of Goldman’s corporate self, this time a spokesman. I repeat what I said in my first paragraph, the name of the individual spokesman is unimportant in this context.
Then we hit paragraph 11. That and the next paragraph seem to support Smith, at least to an extent. They are attributed to unnamed sources. Let us assume these sources spoke only on condition of anonymity, for fear of their jobs. The reporters got what appears to be useful information that would not be biased in favor of Goldman Sachs.
The next paragraph deals with Goldman’s morale, and lack of bonuses. It does not favor Goldman, but opens the question of whether Smith might have been someone who did not get a bonus, and thus would have an ax to grind. Dicey, not to at least attribute that.
Then come the final two paragraphs, where Smith is referred to in knowing ways that suggest he was an unhappy cog. Both of these would have meant more with a name attached to them, and it is worth questioning why the Journal did not attribute them.
LikeLike
Thanks for that thoughtful, detailed analysis, Michael. This passage, which presumably made it through the Journal’s editors that Robert was worried about, should not be pinned on unnamed sources: “In revenue-generating positions, it is unusual for Goldman vice presidents to keep that title for as long as Mr. Smith did, according to Goldman executives. Such executives usually are promoted to managing director or leave the firm for more lucrative jobs elsewhere.” If “executives” don’t give their names, you don’t use their quotes to trash a company critic.
And what’s with the 12K vice presidents in a company with 30K employees? Talk about title inflation!
LikeLike
Steve, I appreciate your post and the blog. We have to constantly challenge ourselves to push for people to be on the record. I do think it was too strong to mock the Journal as “hilariously pathetic.” I searched on “sources said” at a couple of Journal-Register newspaper sites. I found multiple stories by reporters who work for them using anonymous sourcing that seems similar to that used by the WSJ. Perhaps I hit the only two papers in the chain that are guilty of this, but I suspect not. Major papers need to be exemplary, but it seems inappropriate for representatives of an organization that sometimes also falls short to engage in strident name-calling.
LikeLike
I jumped in on this not to single out the Wall Street Journal, but because I was appalled at the fairly widespread pushback Jay was getting on a point I considered important and examples I think were egregious. While I don’t criticize Jay’s word choice, I echoed his view that it was “pathetic,” but did not include “hilariously” because that’s not the word I would use. But I don’t think it’s strident name-calling. Jay used an adjective and an adverb, not a name. There was no valid reason to not use the spokeswoman’s name, and the anonymous sniping was an outrageous use of confidentiality. I’m OK with using strong language.
I didn’t blog on this topic because I think Digital First newsrooms are perfect in their use of unnamed sources but because I think one of the most important uses of my blog is to educate my colleagues and help elevate our standards. If you’d send me the examples you found — sbuttry (at) digitalfirstmedia (dot) com — I’d be happy to note them to the editors responsible, and to note whether I agree with your criticism.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I sent you those stories. Let me know if you don’t get them. I think Rosen got push back because he used an incendiary term prematurely. The comments may well turn out to ring true — if, for instance, it comes out that Smith did not get a bonus last year, or had never made any internal complaints about the behaviors he details, I would wonder about his motives in calling out Goldman so publicly and with so much vitriol.
Michael
LikeLike
What I am bothered by is the response from WSJ saying that oh, this was just a quick hit blog post so who cares? Ok fine, they didn’t say “who cares?” but that was the implication. Why is online content is somehow the ugly stepchild of print? I see this happen time and time again with stories online being badly sourced, badly written, badly copy-edited and then “cleaned up” for the print edition. It disheartens me greatly that reporters and editors seem to think that standards vary depending on the medium being used. They shouldn’t.
LikeLike
I can forgive some rough edges in an unedited blog post (for crying out loud, I made the old million/billion error myself today). But for matters of accuracy, identification and other ethical issues, we should expect blogs to hold to an organization’s standards.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Michael’s comment above on not identifying the spokesperson in the first instance echoes the opinion I developed in 20-some years on the business desk. There’s a difference between quoting someone who is speaking on his or her own and someone who is simply a delivery device for a corporate statement.
There are gray areas. If the president’s press secretary answers questions at a news conference, surely much of what’s said was planned out. But you can’t necessarily tell, so name the spokesperson. But when the quote is from a statement clearly read out, or, even worse, from a news release, naming the person is, arguably, more misleading than not naming. To name someone implies, I think, a more active role in promulgating the statement. Jane Doe isn’t saying this; Jane Doe could be replaced with an automatic speech generator to the same effect. When we cite a line from a news release, do we have to name the person who typed it?
Indeed, I think the more pathetic circumstance is when we attribute a quote by name to a company official even though we got it from a news release. The likelihood that the person we name actually uttered the statement is vanishingly small.
I can’t say I was consistent about this as an editor, but I often opted for “the company said” rather than attribute something to a spokesperson, named or not. Considering that many of us work for newspapers that do not provide individual bylines on editorials, turnabout seems fair play.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, John. I would prefer attribution to a company statement over attribution to an unnamed spokeswoman. Failure to name a person mentioned in a story gives the appearance of using unnamed sources. We do that too much when we’re really withholding identity (see the “familiar” person Enrich quoted). We shouldn’t do it when the person is willing to be identified. If you want to treat it as a company statement, then treat it as a company statement.
LikeLike
The omission of a company spokesperson passing on a company statement does not upset me. If Goldman Sach’s only response was a statement on its website with no names attached, would you refrain from quoting it? I understand the company CEO sent around a signed internal memo in response that was widely quoted.
The bigger sin was in letting unnamed sources disparage the departing employee’s relative importance and duration in the same job. That may have been accurate, but “How do you know that?” should be the next question. Whether to include the characterizations depends how that question is answered.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Hal. I’m fine with quoting a company statement, attributing it to a statement released by the company. I do not like quoting an unnamed spokeswoman because it gives the appearance of promiscuous use of confidentiality, which I think undermines our credibility.
LikeLike
“Promiscuous” may be in the eye of the beholder. The last time this issue arose in a big way, national media outlets adopted an explanation mode for using unnamed sources, to show that this was the only way to get the key facts. That’s practiced like so:
http://journalstar.com/news/national/suspect-in-killing-of-afghan-civilians-identified/article_d8cd1868-da8f-5a57-a348-aa219b71c85c.html
Suspect in killing of Afghan civilians identified
Associated Press | Posted: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:37 pm
A senior U.S. official says the soldier accused in the killing of 16 Afghan civilians is Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into an incident that has roiled relations with Afghanistan.
===============
Some may regard that as an elaborate fig leaf. It has certainly turned into the new normal.
LikeLike
That’s kind of my point: The Journal piece offered no explanation for either unnamed source. What would such explanation have been? “Said a spokeswoman who was talking on the record but the Journal is not naming her because we assume this was written by a company committee” and “said a person familiar with the matter who declined to give his name because he wanted to avoid accountability”?
Lack of explanation for confidentiality is probably a red flag that the explanation is weak.
LikeLike
Sorry. “Sachs’ “
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about news reports without bylines?
LikeLike
I believe news reports should be bylined (editorials, too). However, they clearly are the work of the staff of the news organization, so I don’t see lack of a byline as cowardice or lack of accountability (the news org is accountable and knows who wrote and edited the story.
LikeLike
“the news org … knows who wrote and edited the story.”
But the reader doesn’t.
LikeLike
Agreed. I favor identifying reporters. But I’d say it’s akin to the “spokesman” situation, where the institution responsible is clearly identified, but there’s no good reason not to identify the actual person. Not akin to the “person familiar.”
LikeLike
Yes, similar to how it’s obvious that a spokesperson is speaking for an organization.
LikeLike
[…] how I explained this position in an earlier post on this nameless mouthpieces: The first point of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics is “Seek truth […]
LikeLike
[…] I have written multiple times about confidential sources, who is the first of the 5 W’s, an essential question that we should answer in news […]
LikeLike
[…] handout), transparency, expressing opinions in social media and multiple posts on confidential sources (including another from the Training Tracks […]
LikeLike
[…] Wall Street Journal lets cowardly sources avoid accountability in Goldman Sachs story […]
LikeLike
[…] Wall Street Journal lets cowardly sources avoid accountability in Goldman Sachs story […]
LikeLike
[…] Wall Street Journal lets cowardly sources avoid accountability in Goldman Sachs story […]
LikeLike
[…] single out the Times. I’ve also criticized use of unnamed sources by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Politico (for an unsourced hatchet job about Baquet’s predecessor, Jill Abramson, when […]
LikeLike
[…] Wall Street Journal lets cowardly sources avoid accountability in Goldman Sachs story […]
LikeLike