Anonymous Sources

Anonymous sources are the bane or pleasure of reporters and editors. These secretive agents can offer some juicy stories. The Washington Post and New York Times are champion advocates of these news origins — senior White House staff, member of the Secretary's policy team and even "Deep Throat".

Deep Throat was less an original source for quotes, but a guide to where the famous journalistic duo —Woodstein and Burnward— would find original and authentic data and sources who could reveal action from the first person.

While I am not castigating "anonymous(e) sources", I am advising readers to consider the adage "you get what you pay for". I, myself, have used them occasionally and then I tried to ensure independent verification of the statement or observation. But the number of times I've employed these sources can be counted one of Monk's paws.

While I have admit my own contamination from playing with these hidden news revelations, I will offer you some insight to the actual dangers of this tool and again warn you of its intrinsic low value and high combustibility.

As some know, I frequently report on the meetings of the Valley Health System (VHS) Board of Directors. The last regular meeting was June 29. I was there, so apparently was a reporter from our esteemed daily neighboring paper — The PE.

I'm always interested to read another reporters story of the same meeting or incident. I compare it to see if we had the same observations, interpreted the comments and behavior similarly, thus at the same meeting, and if I missed something critical.

In the middle of the story, I read the following sentence:

" Quorum renegotiated contracts, including those with five major carriers, to go to a fee-for-service model, which board members say didn't work."

This immediately raised the question in my mind, "which board members?" Although several board members were quoted in other places in the story, it would be unfair to assume it was them. This reference criticizing the new contracts is actually attributed to no one, just "directors".

The reason that concerns me is that it conflicts with VHS management's views and the directors' response to a question that I posed at the June 29 meeting. After Melanie Van Winkle, vice president of finance, made a presentation on the May financial results, I asked if I was correctly interpreting the revenue from July through May. She confirmed that I was right.

For the 11 months of 2008-09, the net patient revenue was $153.8 million compared to $138.4 million for the same period during 2007-08. A $15.4 million increase, with the new fee-for-service contracts, is an 11.1 percent growth.

I then asked if the capitation (fixed fee-per-patient) model had been continued, would VHS have collected more revenue than the fee-for-service model generated. Winkle was quite certain that the former model would have lagged behiind the current revenue models and VHS had made a prudent decision to switch contract terms.

After Winkle answered the question, none of the directors made a comment or contradicted Winkle.

So that's the problem with anonymous sources, were these directors telling the PE the truth, but afraid to admit that in a public board meeting? Or was something more nefarious at play here and the private comments could not stand the light of public scrutiny?

I don't know the answers, but it again raises my concern about employing sources who are reluctant to acknowledge publicly what they say or think.

Better Journalism for All

Okay, enough with the evolution and zoology Idyes. I want to devote this blog to better journalism — both yours and mine.

After nearly six years, I feel I can begin to share some pointers with you that will make reading the newspapers more interesting (even outside the bathroom).

So I’ll begin with headlines, which are what you usually see first, unless you’re farsighted.

The headline is supposed to capture your attention, raise your curiosity and entice you to read the whole story, unless you speed read and omit modifiers).

Let me give you and example from last week. This is an actual headline that appeared in one of our local periodicals (actually a daily).

“1 dead after car hits fence, tree, pole “.

It captures your attention because you wonder how hard the car hit these objects, why did it hit them and what caused the altercation. More importantly in this example, you become curious about whether the tree, pole or fence succumbed to the impact of the vehicle.

This choice and the unknown are what really tempt you to become involved with the story premise. It’s a guessing game and you want to be right. A challenge, such as throwing down the gauntlet, is a literary device more than 100 years old.

But you are familiar with it since elementary school. You may not remember it (unless you watch “The Price is Right”). So you accept the challenge. Rather than an writing essay, the multiple choice test offered in this headline evokes your memories of eighth grade (which is our target reading level). Those old wooden desk were much safer and more comfortable than today’s stainless steel or composite wood.

During those years, you read about the “The Lady, or the Tiger”, written in 1882. What’s behind door number 2? A successful headline evokes these feelings of youthful competition.

Hidden within this story, you discover another common journalistic trick — irony. None of the objects mentioned in the headline — the tree, the fence or the pole — died. Ironically, it was the driver. Congratulations for those who thought outside the box.

Good reporting surprises you with additional information and keeps you keenly attentive to the next paragraph.

Later this week, I’ll explain the difference between your local scribe and the New York Times, Washington Post and the PeE. (besides the number of Pulitzer Prizes and other awards). You’ll learn about a cherished and established journalistic tradition — anonymous sources.

Remember all this who, where, when, why and how are “off the record”.