According to sources, anonymous is now OK

“Fake news!”

Yep, those have been the hottest two words to discredit stories or embarrass journalists.

Unfortunately, like the boy who cried wolf, “fake news” has been hollered by so many sources at so many news organizations that the phrase is losing most of its power.

Everyone who doesn’t like a story just shouts or tweets “fake news” and assumes that everything — including facts of the case — have magically disappeared.

The really sad thing is that almost anyone can publish a story these days, from the New York Times to a blog created by Joe the Trash Man.

And with this sort of “journalism” open to the world, indeed you WILL have fake news — either to harm someone’s reputation or just to make a little mischief.

We’ve now become accustomed to fake news on the giant scale, like outright lies to ruin the reputation of national figures ... but there are plenty more everyday phrases that can quickly turn nonsense into street-corner truth.

A FAIRLY new trap is the use of unnamed or anonymous sources to make a critical point in a controversial story.

There was a time when a legitimate journalist wouldn’t touch an anonymous source — but now there are so many ways to get real news into the world that, unfortunately, certain types of anonymous information will be considered and then approved.

We don’t have to be talking about international politics, either.

What if an Idaho legislator tells me he’s going to introduce a particular bill in the 2018 session — and he wants conversation to start now in order to give the issue a flying start?

That’s all well and good, but then the legislator tells me not to use his name, at least not yet?

Under certain circumstances, we might print that story — but there would have to be a lot of trust involved.

I’d have to trust the legislator to be telling the truth. My editor would have to trust that I know my source.

And ultimately, you the reader would have to trust all of us.

For that reason, even here in the flying technology of the 21st century, we are very, VERY careful about quoting an anonymous source in print.

HERE’S another minefield ...

How about if a public figure says they know someone is playing fast and loose with rules or money or sex or whatever.

“I’m going to tell it all, and name the people involved,” they say.

Should I use that quote?

It depends.

For instance, if that statement came from Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, you might think about it — because Scott already HAS accused colleagues of naughty behavior, and done so publicly.

Plus, she DID use names.

If Scott threatened to go public with an eye-rolling tale, you’d have to consider she means it — but having said that, you can’t just throw something out to the public just because it’s Heather Scott or anyone else.

She deserves the same care and discretion as the Dalai Lama.

YOU NEED more details for that kind of story, obviously, but the point here is deciding whether the source is someone who is willing to speak up — regardless of circumstances.

At this very moment, I’m mulling over a rumor I’ve heard involving state politics. Two totally unconnected people have mentioned it — both are honest and neither was kidding.

And frankly, the pieces fit together so I suspect the rumor is true.

But ... but...

I need to feel more certain before I’ll publish this thing with my name on it.

That’s the kind of checking we do. It’s also the type of checking we hope you’ll do.

With so much junk disguised as news, we all have to be careful.

One of the phrases I learned at my very first job sums it up: “If your mother says she loves you ... get a second source!”

- • •

Steve Cameron is a special assignment reporter for The Press. Reach Steve via email: scameron@cdapress.com.