Earlier today, I read on ESPN that Hedo Turkoglu had agreed to a free agent contract with the Portland Trail Blazers. The ESPN article reportedly got the information from "sources."
After reading this news, which had supposedly been confirmed, I wrote a column about what Turkoglu brings to the Blazers, and what the gamble will mean for the Blazers future.
The time spent on that column, apparently, was all for nothing.
ESPN is now reporting that Turkoglu has ended negotiations with the Blazers. Again, the article cites "sources." The sources aren't named, nor are they identified as being close to the team, the league, or the planet earth. They are simply "sources."
That sort of lazy reporting, spreading false information by not confirming the reports, is an insult to readers and the profession of journalism.
Now, I understand that, in the grand scheme of things, the mis-reporting of a basketball free agent signing is not the end of the world (and I admit to being mad about writing a whole column that is now worthless), but this does bring to light some of the problems with reporting using unnamed sources. I fully understand that journalism is a deadline-driven business where timing is everything and the pressure to break a story is high. But that doesn't excuse reporting something false.
They teach you in journalism classes that all stories need to be confirmed by two sources close to the story. The "closeness" factor is extremely important. If an NBA team signs a free agent, the people who can confirm a story are people high up in the organization who had or saw direct contact with the decision. The receptionist, or an intern cannot confirm the story, because they might not know all the facts. IN the case of the Turkoglu/Blazers story, the "sources" cited didn't know what they were talking about.
I know that journalists will always need unnamed sources if they want to report certain stories. People and organizations are always so desperate to control the flow of information that they will reject comment on a story and instruct other employees to do the same. Sometimes, it is necessary to have someone confirm a story off the record, simply to get the truth out.
But a level of professionalism must be kept, and that means that the use of unnamed sources must not run so rampant that the wrong facts are reported. I understand employees don't want to lose their jobs, so if they must go off the record, the journalist must give the readers something in order to save face: the areas or departments the sources work in, or how high up in the organization they serve. That way, if something wrong does come out, we know where the misinformation is coming from.
It's either that, or wait until you can confirm the story with 100 percent certainty. That might help.
When I was working for the Gonzaga Bulletin newspaper, a breaking story arose right before a deadline. Apparently, a student had been hiding explosive materials in his dorm room, and may have been responsible for a Molotov cocktail found in a parking lot. The Bulletin reporters called anyone close to the investigation, went to a press conference, and even went to the dorm hall in question. The reporters wrote their story based on the information given to them by authorities, specifically citing where they had received their information.
But much of that information turned out to be false. Rather than dismiss this, the Bulletin acknowledged its mistakes, and continued to report the story as it unfolded, citing the sources of new information and explicitly explaining where the incorrect information came from.
That experience proved to be a lesson for all of us on staff - that if we were clear with the readers in our reporting, we remain truthful and credible in the eyes of our readers and the subject of our stories.
But when reporters get lazy, the publishing of mis-information spirals out of control to the point that everyone else follows your lead.
Just because you cite new "sources" after learning of your blunder or re-write your lede after following the blunders of others doesn't make up for bad reporting. If you break the story, you're responsible for what happens if you get it wrong.
Readers deserve better. Fans deserve better. Journalism deserves better.
(And you made me waste a whole afternoon writing that column. Damn it.)
