When Anonymous Sources Disappear Entirely

John Gruber notes the weird lack of sourcing in the WSJ’s article about Steve Jobs’s liver transplant:

There are several highly unusual aspects to the Journal’s story. First is that they offer no source for the information — not even an “according to sources familiar with the matter”. But yet they state it flatly as certain fact that Steve Jobs had a secret liver transplant in Tennessee. Blockbuster news with no sourcing whatsoever. To call that curious is an understatement. And, coming in the opening paragraph of a page one story, it could not be a careless omission.

The basic tenets of journalism are simple. One reports facts and how one knows them.

This is true, as far as it goes. But it seems to me that although the lack of sourcing is unusual, it actually reflects quite well on the WSJ — and I wouldn’t be too unhappy to see more of it in future.

The WSJ is notorious for using the exact same formula in substantially all of its stories which don’t have named sources: “according to people familiar with the matter”. Since no one would ever knowingly report a story based on information from people unfamiliar with the matter, this formula has exactly zero utility for readers.

What’s more, the “according to people familiar with the matter” formula can sound, to the literal-minded, like a little bit of a CYA move. Assuming someone familiar with the matter really did say that X, a story saying “X, according to people familiar with the matter” is technically true even if X is false.

By contrast, here’s the first paragraph of the WSJ story:

Steve Jobs, who has been on medical leave from Apple Inc. since January to treat an undisclosed medical condition, received a liver transplant in Tennessee about two months ago. The chief executive has been recovering well and is expected to return to work on schedule later this month, though he may work part-time initially.

In this case, if the WSJ’s sources are misguided or lying, the WSJ has no recourse — it’s telling us simple unadorned facts. As Gruber says, “if it’s not true, it would amount to one of the biggest mistakes in their esteemed history”.

I, then, welcome the deletion of the lazy and unhelpful formula — it makes it clearer that the WSJ is reporting facts, and is standing foursquare behind its story. Given the choice between a simple assertion and that same assertion backed up by “people familiar with the matter”, I’ll take the simple assertion any day.

The New York Times has a 1,646-word policy on confidential sources which urges reporters and editors to provide as much information as possible about anonymice. It’s honored more in the breach than in the observance, but at least it’s there, which is a good start. The WSJ, by contrast, has never placed much emphasis on providing helpful descriptors of confidential sources: the fact that a story appears in the WSJ should be all that a reader needs to take the information at face value.

Personally, I prefer to see more detailed information about anonymice than the completely unhelpful fact that they’re “familiar with the matter”. But if you take it as granted that the WSJ is comfortable using such a meaningless description, then I think everybody is much better off just dropping the pretense that it’s adding any information at all. The Jobs story, reporting the facts sans any attribution whatsoever, is a significant improvement, I think, on the overworn formula of old. It’ll be interesting to see whether the WSJ goes down this road more often in future — and what readers are meant to make of the distinction between stories which are just asserted, on the one hand, and stories which are sourced to “people familiar with the matter”, on the other.

Update: I asked Dow Jones if they had any comment on this; they replied by saying that “as a matter of policy, we don’t discuss sourcing”.

Comments

[Moon Kil Woong:]

What would the market do without speculation an innuendo? Probably drop dead for lack of tradable baloney to throw around.

I agree with Felix salmon that I respect papers stating unblemished facts. However, due to the past years on the assault on journalism for posting facts and for protecting their sources, I certainly think that we should give more difference to real journalism trying to uncover and expose what's going on rather than less.

The media seems to be the only real check on the government and even then it is subject to the whims of politics and biased fancy. Oh what is the world coming to?

Today I value blogger news over any of the mainstream media. It seems that people in the know tend to be, more often than not, some guy in the blogosphere who actually did their research.

Jun 22 05:21 AM

[kotika98:]

It sure sounds like the words are from the horses mouth, that is Jobs himself. That would explain perfectly why it is not necessary to attribute it to "people familiar with the matter".

Jun 22 07:19 AM

[kotika98:]

>Given the choice between a simple assertion and that same assertion backed up by “people familiar with the matter”, I’ll take the simple assertion any day.

Not so. "people familiar with the matter" are people who have firsthand knowledge as opposed to transmitting hearsay through the rumor mill. The reporter does in fact know which is it, so we have to rely on their integrity. If reporters start making simple assertions, then there is nothing stopping them from reporting simple rumors as fact. Because we cannot always rely on the reporter and even their boss, the Editor's, integrity traditionally all information must be sourced. In the good old times Editors refused stories sourced anonymously unless there was <b>strong</b> reasons for them to be protected - like Deep Throat.

Jun 22 07:27 AM

[rrtzmd:]

..."Since no one would ever knowingly report a story based on information from people unfamiliar with the matter, this formula has exactly zero utility for readers."...????....sweet jeezus, what planet are you from?!!!...uhhh. someone wanting to attempt to manipulate a stock's price -- maybe???...or maybe trying to manipulate a political process?...or maybe trying to achieve any number of goals -- I can think of a bunch of them!!!...aw, gosh, I guess in this most ethical of all worlds, an idea like that would never cross anyone's mind...

Jun 22 08:25 AM

[tuj:]

I agree with the author; the WSJ article states "Steve Jobs, who has been on medical leave from Apple Inc. since January to treat an undisclosed medical condition, received a liver transplant in Tennessee about two months ago. "

Normally that statement would be concluded with something like "..according to sources familiar with the case."

Then the reporters call the 3 hospitals that could do the procedure and they all say that Jobs wasn't there. Yet they state that the surgery was a certainty.

Jun 22 08:34 AM

[svosavvy:]

Why did Steve Jobs go to tenesee for the operation? Why not new york or LA or any other source of world class surgeons, nothing against tenesee, but, I wonder where/who the liver came from? Maybe there's a story.

Jun 22 10:11 AM

[BerkeleyBob:]

I think the WSJ's flat assertion puts its own credibility at risk. Most people following the story and speculating as to its source seem to believe the source was Apple and the release timed to minimize attention to the health story. Don't know. There are some issues over right to privacy, and the WSJ followup noted that the failure to disclose was arguably not material because Jobs was on medical leave when he had the procedure. But, Apple's culture of secrecy does not serve it nor serve shareholders over the long run, and should be re-examined, as should executive compensation. (Jobs himself was cleared of any irregularities, but other insiders settled civilly with the feckless SEC.)

Jun 22 02:05 PM

[TinyTim:]

according to people familiar with the matter, the liver came from John Sculley as payback.

Jun 22 02:39 PM

[another.ana...:]

I think this is the biggest pile of horse pucky since the gullible swallowed the "authentic" Hitler Diaries.
The WSJ can't be wrong? The WSJ is a wholly credible source? The WSJ would never purposely steer the investor wrong with bogus information that would boost/damage a publicly traded company?

Oh right. Ask some of the investors in some of the companies that have been naked & otherwise been shorted into oblivion by the WSJ's front running for the Hedgies & Cramer scum!

I don't believe Jobs had a Liver transplant & will only believe it if Apple or Jobs confirms it. He especially should know, since the operation would certainly gained his attention. Until then the WSJ sucks just like all the other Wall Street crooks.

Ayuh

Jun 22 06:24 PM

[Alan Young:]

Do you mean, "... give more deference..."?

On Jun 22 05:21 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:

> I certainly think
> that we should give more difference to real journalism trying to
> uncover and expose what's going on rather than less.

Jun 22 06:50 PM

[TinyTim:]

Job's liver-

I thought there was an app for that. ;o)

Jun 22 09:49 PM