Who Are Those People Familiar With The Matter

Since when have newspapers started citing unnamed sources over and again --- according to people "familiar with the matter"? Does that bother you? It bothers me.

LA Times reported earlier this month that "a person familiar with the matter says IBM intends to pay $9 to $10 a share" to acquire Sun Microsystem; February's Washington Post started its story on SEC's investigation into Stanford as "a range of federal agencies... have been investigating allegations of fraud and possibly other illegal activity at R. Allen Stanford's companies for at least two years, according to people familiar with the matter;" Today's Wall Street Journal front page story brought the whole matter to a new level:

"More than three months into a medical leave from Apple Inc., Chief Executive Steve Jobs remains closely involved in key aspects of running the company, say people familiar with the matter. Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook runs the day-to-day operations at Apple, these people say. But Mr. Jobs has continued to work on the company's most important strategies and products from home, they say. He regularly reviews products and product plans, and was particularly involved in the user interface of the new iPhone operating system that Apple unveiled last month, these people say."

Who are "these people"? Why should readers believe in THEM? Speaking from experience, I admitted that sources ask to be anonymous, or on-the-background, for sensitive topics. But abuse of such leeway can lead to lazy reporting and incredible stories.

John Paczkowski's Daily Digital blog mentioned a New York Post story last year that got facts dead wrong by citing people who claimed to be familiar with the matter:

" The reason Microsoft hasn’t announced the slate of dissident directors it plans to nominate to Yahoo’s board isn’t that it’s already too deep in negotiations with Yahoo to bother–it’s that it can’t find any dissident directors to nominate. This according to “sources close to the situation” who tell the New York Post that Microsoft hasn’t managed to line up a single candidate for Yahoo’s board. Not a one.

Huh. That said, there is one little caveat.

Other sources–“sources familiar with the matter”–tell the Post that Microsoft does in fact have a slate of 10 board candidates and two alternates locked and loaded and will pull the trigger on nominating them if it must.

Holy Shiite … what a story. Incidentally, sources with knowledge of both “the matter” and “the situation” tell us that the Post has got this one dead wrong–the first part of it, anyway."

So it is unsettling to see increasing number of reporters from major publications, especially business and Wall Street coverage, are citing such anonymous sources. It is particularly alarming in a time when blogs and online news sites are eating up traditional newspapers. Credibility is one of the few things that newspapers still hold onto in the battle against uncensored online content. If newspapers give up its credibility, they give up the battle.