Journalists love to proclaim that they bring transparency to democracy, but it’s far too often the exact opposite. They try to run our democracy by exploiting anonymous sources.
So when Trump is president, “senior administration officials” say “he’s coming seriously unglued.” When Biden was president, “senior administration officials” say “he’s quite lucid in private meetings.” Journalists use anonymous sources to underline and reinforce the narrative they’re selling.
But this abusive manipulation is most ridiculous when it’s journalists quoting other journalists anonymously. Brian Stelter wrote entire books about Fox News with heavy doses of anonymous Foxers. It’s a similar formula to politics: sling mud at people you don’t like, with zero damage to your career, or even benefit your career.
After the firing of Scott Pelley, Stelter anonymously quoted someone channeling Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss: "It's also about ensuring that ‘60 Minutes’ — and its DNA of hard-hitting interviews, probing investigations, deep journalism — is built to survive a changing media landscape." But Weiss and new “60 Minutes” boss Nick Bilton have already said this on the record.
Then Stelter quoted an anonymous Weiss basher: "Can you imagine the irony of this anti-woke free speech warrior not being able to handle someone speaking passionately in a meeting?" Or: can you imagine a “free speech warrior” not wanting to speak freely unless they’re anonymous?
Washington Post media reporter Scott Nover uncorked the usual line about CBS staffers “spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.” Candor means openness and honesty, so the word sort of collapses on itself here. Is this anonymous candor, or just anonymous cowardice? Nover found a conga line of Pelley supporters. Why not put your name on it, if Pelley’s so awesome?
“The idea that Scott Pelley creates a hostile environment at that place is the most laughable idea I’ve ever heard,” one former staffer said. “‘60 Minutes’ is full of jerks but he is the most calm, professional and polite correspondent I’ve ever worked for.”
A current staffer said: “Scott Pelley is the only person who allows this show to continue. Without him, ‘60 Minutes’ is gone. They can use the ‘tick-tick-tick,’ but they will never have the whole clock again.”
When asked how the feeling inside “60 Minutes” was, another staffer put it bluntly: “It’s like being awake during surgery.”
Oliver Darcy, whose Status website is dedicated to keeping the elitist media as aggressively leftist as possible, also found an anonymous staffer to say exactly what they need someone to say about Bari Weiss, their arch-nemesis: “She managed to destroy ‘60 Minutes’ in three days. There should be some kind of medal for that.”
Darcy also found a “TV executive” to underline their argument: “In the end, this is what Trump wanted. The Ellisons and Bari Weiss have delivered to Trump exactly what he asked them for.”
Pelley and his supportive anonymous sources are helping Darcy make a living from subscribers as he attempts to shame anyone in the press striking the slightest centrist pose.
Readers have no idea what motivates anonymous sources to say these things. You can’t look up the political donations, or social-media feeds, or LinkedIn pages of anonymous sources. That’s what makes this game fun for them. They can drop bombs or push valentines without anyone questioning their authenticity. They’re authentic cowards, and reporters enable that cowardice – even from other reporters.
Journalists should refrain from lecturing anyone about how they are saving democracy or promoting transparency when this is how they manipulate the “breaking news.”
