I’ve spent the last few days mulling over the latest topic of debate in Canadian soccer circles – the use of anonymous sources. This involves some serious navel gazing, so fair warning up front.
Much of this conversation has stemmed from the Star’s Cathal Kelly column that painted Aron Winter in a pretty poor light – and used anonymous sources throughout to skewer the man. And what followed was an apt critique from the Score’s Richard Whittall who did some skewering of his own.
I won’t really go into the Kelly piece further. The consensus seems to have arrived at: it was an abuse of the tool that is anonymous sources and that a fair portrait of Winter’s time in Toronto was not painted.
Out of that conversation has spawned two corresponding debates. One is the use at all of anonymous sources. And the other is that Toronto’s mainstream soccer press has allowed themselves to be led down the primrose path on issues that pertain to the club.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
On the latter, there is always a fine line being walked by beat reporters. They have to maintain their relationships with the club to get access and also to keep strong relations with players and personnel to get scoops. Like it or not, high profile jobs in the industry are given to those who are able to breaking news accurately and consistently.
In an ideal world – and how it works for most of the other sports in major cities - the beat reporter is the one who has his ear to the ground for what goes on during and away from the game. When it comes to things that he can’t report on, for fear of burning a source – or getting himself outright expelled from the press box – they pass along that information to a columnist.
The columnist, with an arms length detachment, is able to do the dirty work and write broadly on what needs to be shared. It doesn't burn the original source and provides protection for the beat reporter who has to look these guys in the eye everyday.
Unfortunately, in this city, soccer scribes often play the role of beat reporter, columnist and editor. Despite the recent growth of the game, mainstream gigs still remain few and far between.
So, if it appears that those in the press in Toronto are often too cozy with management, consider that they are being asked to play all three roles and, as such, given the situation they are in, limits how far they can go with their criticisms. I’ll add to that, given the anger amongst the fan base is rightfully at an all time high, even in an ideal newsroom situation, writers would still be painted as not going far enough.
On the other side of this coin is the anonymous sources conversation. I’ve spoken with Richard about this in the past and told him that I didn’t think it was his place to make those kinds of judgments. My view is that it’s easy for those who don’t do interviews and seek to break stories to lecture those who do not. If you're not doing the work of vetting sources and chasing down news, you really don't have a handle on all of what goes into the decision to use anonymous sources. His sticking point is that they are being relied upon too often in Canadian soccer. I can see how he would arrive there but, among other things, it doesn't give room for the situation that I explained above.
The points he makes about the ethics involved in the Kelly piece are apt and I'm glad he stepped forward to discuss them. But I continue to take issue with the professorial tone and finger wagging that has spawned from it.
Quite simply, it’s never a black or white issue when dealing with anonymous sources.
I have spent the better part of the last two years struggling with how to write about the match-fixing that has plagued the CSL. The number of people who have come forward, those willing to share what they know but only anonymously, has been frustrating.
I have held off except for a few occasions. In those case I knew that either they were doing this with outright justification (fearing for their safety) or felt that their story was so necessary to the dialogue that it needed to be told. I have had the luxury of getting the support of CBC. They were willing to commit a sizable amount of resources to the project and it granted me the privilege of time.
That’s never the case for those in the daily environment.
From our own experience, Canadian Soccer News have used anonymous sources a number of times in the past. It’s always a conversation with a couple writers about if we consider the information credible and if it's imperative to the dialogue in the community.
Ben Knight’s work on the CSA reform is a perfect example of why it is necessary. Much of that information would never had come to the forefront had we asked each and every source to put their name beside it. Reform was a massively complicated issue and a three-headed dragon was confronting people on the inside at every turn.
I think few would disagree how his reporting was one of the driving forces along the torrid pace to reform. And I honestly wonder where we would have been today without it.
You’re not always going to get it right when it comes to use of anonymous sources. Any journalist worth his salt will admit (albeit quietly and to himself in a sound proofed room) to having been used by a source before. It happens and the only thing you can do is be more cautious the next time. Ideally it would be information that a columnist could work from a distance but again, we're not there.
Journalism is largely a self-regulated industry. In that, good reporters usually rise because they’ve built a reputation for getting stories first and being consistent. Those who miss the mark too often are labeled as hacks, have their credibility stripped and eventually find themselves flushed out the bottom of the industry. Those who followed the career decline of Marty York can attest to that.
And as these mistakes do happen, repeatedly tossing mud across the proverbial aisle never accomplishes much other than a pissing contest and to drag the entire industry down the pit of public doubt. In the end, it makes us all look bad. And those who go that route, of making it a public fight, mostly do it to just satisfy their own ego.
There will always be egos in journalism, just as there will always be debates about the ethics of those involved.
In fact, an 'anonymous source' told me that one of the lead researchers on the Canadian D2 study was planning to report and write about the issue himself. I didn’t consult NPR, but I do think that falls under conflict of interest.
My view is anonymous sources are a necessary tool. The question of whether the decision is right falls to that writer, his readers and the peers that shoulder a similar burden.