Col­umn: Let’s Curb the Kan­ga­roo Court of Anony­mous Sources

<div>Column: Let's Curb the Kangaroo Court of Anonymous Sources</div>

The anti-Trump media have already con­grat­u­lat­ed them­selves for destroy­ing the Matt Gaetz nom­i­na­tion for Attor­ney Gen­er­al and are now attempt­ing to destroy the Pete Hegseth nom­i­na­tion for Sec­re­tary of Defense.

Vet­ting the records of Cab­i­net nom­i­nees is a legit­i­mate jour­nal­is­tic func­tion. It is not a legit­i­mate jour­nal­is­tic func­tion to kill a nom­i­na­tion based on hit pieces stuffed with anony­mous sources. Some­one with respon­si­bil­i­ty at media out­lets should insure that their hit pieces include some sources who are named. Net­works who eager­ly spread anony­mous­ly sourced hit pieces are also ille­git­i­mate. This is activism, not jour­nal­ism.

Three NBC reporters issued a sto­ry that began:

“Pete Hegseth, Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald Trump’s pick for defense sec­re­tary, drank in ways that con­cerned his col­leagues at Fox News, accord­ing to 10 cur­rent and for­mer Fox employ­ees who spoke with NBC News.”

None of them were named: “three cur­rent and sev­en for­mer Fox employ­ees, all of whom asked not to be named because of fear of retal­i­a­tion.”

So you can destroy someone’s nom­i­na­tion anony­mous­ly with no “retal­i­a­tion”? Couldn’t it be argued that these nasty quotes alleg­ing out-of-con­trol drink­ing could con­sti­tute “retal­i­a­tion”?

NBC grant­ed this per­mis­sion because they all share the same neg­a­tive goal: purge Pete. They refuse to inter­view his Fox News co-hosts who went on the record in Hegseth’s defense and say NBC nev­er reached out to them. That’s because fair­ness and bal­ance are equat­ed with “nor­mal­iz­ing” Trump.

Fox News per­son­al­i­ty and come­di­an Jim­my Fail­la sum­ma­rized the par­ti­san media games with this tweet: “NBC runs with anony­mous sources who say Pete Hegseth hits the bot­tle but ignores every­one ON RECORD who says Doug Emhoff hits his girl­friend.”

Back in Octo­ber, when the net­works ignored the alle­ga­tions of Emhoff’s vio­lence at the Cannes Film Fes­ti­val, they ran with an anony­mous­ly-sourced hit piece in The Atlantic where Don­ald Trump alleged­ly claimed that a dead Mex­i­can-Amer­i­can veteran’s funer­al was too expen­sive (that he had offered to fund). Four years ear­li­er, Jef­frey Gold­berg & Co. used anony­mous sources say­ing Trump called Amer­i­can war dead “suck­ers” and “losers.” They’re still ped­dling that tox­ic stuff.

This, in polit­i­cal terms, is a kan­ga­roo court, where the accused is not allowed to know his accusers – “for fear of retal­i­a­tion.” It’s man­i­fest­ly unfair to ruin pres­i­den­tial cam­paigns or gov­ern­ment con­fir­ma­tions with anony­mous sources and a lot of bray­ing about “grow­ing out­rage tonight.” Who is “grow­ing the out­rage?” The media with an axe in its hand.  

Tax­pay­er-fund­ed NPR pro­mot­ed New York­er writer Jane May­er and her lat­est anti-Hegseth hit piece on the ridicu­lous­ly named All Things Con­sid­ered, since that pro­gram – well, all NPR pro­grams — failed to con­sid­er the alle­ga­tions against Doug Emhoff in Octo­ber. May­er also pro­mot­ed NBC’s hit piece. She also under­lined “Pete Hegseth has been accused of rap­ing a woman in 2017.” No charges were ever brought, but they’ll throw any noo­dles at the wall when there’s a Repub­li­can “con­fir­ma­tion process.”

You can also see the games at play when NBC reporters pro­claim their net­work has not “inde­pen­dent con­firmed” nasty alle­ga­tions against Repub­li­cans, but recounts them on tele­vi­sion any­way. But they’ll sit on neg­a­tive alle­ga­tions against Democ­rats like Doug Emhoff because they haven’t con­firmed them independently…if in fact they are mak­ing any attempt to inde­pen­dent­ly con­firm these things.  

“News” out­lets that load up neg­a­tive sto­ries with anony­mous sources can­not lec­ture us on trans­paren­cy, and if they ruin a new­ly elect­ed president’s nom­i­nees before any con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings, they also should not lec­ture us on democ­ra­cy. The phrase “deep state” can often apply to polit­i­cal actors run­ning the coun­try through anony­mous mud­sling­ing in the press.