The Layoff Beard

Extended Thought ▪ On Condition Of Anonymity

By Matt Sussman | Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

---

When I heard that Sammy Sosa had tested positive for steroids, I thought to myself, “oh, that’s a shame.” I then thought, “well, who would have told anybody that?”

Seriously. Someone has to tell the reporter these things. They don’t just dig up the documents and report. They use sources, and they keep them secret. Because that’s the way that America works. Freedom of the press, long live the written word, and don’t try to censor me! (Or something like that.)

I Apple-F’d the phrase, and sure enough there it was [emphasis on the phrase]:

The lawyers who had knowledge of Sosa’s inclusion on the 2003 list did not know the substance for which Sosa tested positive. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified as discussing material that is sealed by a court order.

Why, hey, that’s the title of this blog post! SPOOKY!

Before we go any further, I absolutely understand the need to use sources to break important stories. Watergate wouldn’t have been a landmark victory for the Washington Post had it not been for W. Mark Felt, the anonymous source which gave some useful information to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. That’s great. Protecting sources is wonderful.

Now, obviously saying “Sammy Sosa did steroids!” isn’t anything remotely cataclysmic as Watergate, nor do I mean to compare the two to diminish the impact or the importance of it. And I’m not faulting the New York Times reporters for using anonymous sources, and I’m not asking them to divulge who they are.

Having qualified all that … who hell keeps putting this information out there?

Seriously, we see this phrase all the time in sports when talking about a potential trade, free agency signing, or whatever the hell is on an athlete’s mind. Every day it seems a person “with knowledge of the situation” or “familiar with the proceedings” is babbling onto a reporter that such-and-such wants a trade to Chicago, or whats-his-face is unhappy with the manager getting fired. Every damn day!

Here’s another one before the Sosa story came out. Donovan McNabb got a $5.3 million raise in his salary as a result of restructuring his contract, according to “a person familiar with the negotiations.” Ah, no big deal. McNabb and his agent talked about it the next day.

And there will be another example tomorrow. And the day after that. And the day after that. But not the following day, because that’s Father’s Day, their day off.

These anonymous sources give the impression that these sports journalists have these inside sources, and they’re providing us SECRET INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULDN’T KNOW! And if “the man” found out who the leak was, he’d kick him to the curb like Norm McDonald and Artie Lange in Dirty Work. (And yes, Lange would just kinda walk off slightly annoyed instead of getting thrown out.)

The problem as I see it is that anonymous sources in sports journalism is becoming the standard, and business as usual. Anonymity adds to the intrigue of sport, which generates interest in the general public, and wedges a 5-11 football team into the news cycle during, say, the playoffs when they have no business being mentioned while great teams duke it out in the conference finals. Their star linebacker wants more money? How fascinating! By the way, who do you have in the Super Bowl?

This brings us to the Sammy Sosa story. An anonymous source, used in this case study, suddenly becomes a pretty big deal. The list of people who used steroids in 2003 was promised by the union to be a sealed document, and clearly it’s not, because we know Alex Rodriguez and now Sosa were on that list. How do we know? Anonymous freakin’ sources, of course. But no big deal! An anonymous source told us that LeBron James would named the MVP a few hours before it was formally announced. No harm done!

Would someone really have gotten in deep trouble had they leaked the LeBron MVP announcement? Here, let’s try this. If you leaked that announcement to the press, speak up. Tell me it was you, and let me announce you were the one who did it. Are you afraid you’ll get in trouble? Did you get in trouble? Or did the anticipation of the formal announcement make the leak that much more valuable?

I’m guessing the latter, because it’s not nearly as SCANDALOUS OR MYSTERIOUS if teams published those rumors on their own official web site. That’d give away the entire allure around everyday anonymous sourcing. And it’s not fair to say “Helen from accounts receivable heard that the general manager is getting a raise,” because of Helen from accounts receivable keeps dishing the tidbits out to Ken Rosenthal, then everyone will want to talk to Helen from accounts receivable, and then she’ll have to deny interviews, and then someone close to Helen from accounts receivable who wishes to remain anonymous will have to start leaking the news.

According to someone with knowledge of the situation, there will be a great promotion at the ballpark on Tuesday. I don’t know what, they wouldn’t tell me. You totally have to buy a ticket and find out!

It wouldn’t surprise me if teams kept on the payroll a secret Clarence Beaks-style employee whose sole purpose was to “leak” information to reporters, thereby getting controlled information to masquerade as hot, juicy news leads.