Journalist says Gov. Ron DeSantis is lying when he says reporters make up anonymous sources

Gov. Ron DeSantis went after the media the other day after another arrest was made in the Durham investigation regarding the Steele dossier, noting how for two years the media pushed the dossier as true and not fictional opposition research from the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

NEW @GovRonDeSantis lights up corp media:"They think they should be able to control the narrative. They should be able to elevate the people they want, & if you're not in that club, they can smear you so people won't like you. But people believe what they see with their own eyes" pic.twitter.com/Dm9MKC2pfz

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 (@ChristinaPushaw) November 5, 2021

In his remarks, DeSantis claimed that journalists make up anonymous sources, which caught the ear of Ted Bridis, who teaches investigative reporting at the University of Florida. Bridis didn’t say anything about the veracity of the Steele dossier, but he did take exception to the idea that journalists make up anonymous sources. (We imagine it’s rare; what’s much more common is journalists asking their colleagues for comment and publishing it anonymously, saying, “People familiar with the matter said….”)

“They make up anonymous sources,” says @GovRonDeSantis, which is false. I was a journalist in Washington for 20 years. Sources speaking on condition of anonymity are identified, vetted internally by editors before they could be cited in news articles. https://t.co/LVoaFNwCZZ

— Ted Bridis (@tbridis) November 5, 2021

Bridis probably didn’t know he was setting himself up for a ratio:

Ted coming in hot with the jokes! 🤣🤣🤣

— DG (@i_love_myusa) November 5, 2021

pic.twitter.com/GOUjbpfnQY

— ComfyMorninSipper (@comfySipper) November 6, 2021

Ted, honestly, I see the desirability of anonymous sources. But in the last four years we have seen anonymous sources who clearly did make up their stories and anonymously sourced stories that had to be retracted. We have excellent reasons based on recent history to distrust.

— (((Charlie Martin))) (@chasrmartin) November 5, 2021

That may have been the case in the past. But today’s mainstream media has lost all credibility with a large portion of people. And they have no one to blame but themselves.

— Brenda Frost (@BrendaFrost18) November 6, 2021

The track record for unnamed sources hadn't been very good lately.

— Dave Kleikamp (@ShaggyKC) November 5, 2021

"Anonymous" was fawned over as some major high up official, with keen in the room knowledge and close to Trump.

He was a staffer at DHS.

Identified and vetted by main stream media doesn't mean much these days. pic.twitter.com/rvtfxRNcsd

— Magnus (@JacksonTDawes) November 5, 2021

Don't worry. I'm sure someone out there believes you. Chin up.

— Ben Dowd (@thebedshow) November 5, 2021

LOL

— Taxpayer1234 (@Taxpayers1234) November 5, 2021

How can the rest of us verify this claim about journalist practices?

— Robin Hanson (@robinhanson) November 6, 2021

I remember when I thought this was true. The sweet innocence of years past..

— Stephen M– (@stephenm_1) November 6, 2021

Just here for the ratio.

Anonymously…

— Parker Smith (@ParkerKSmith) November 6, 2021

If I can’t trust the editors, I can’t trust the “sources”.

— 🇺🇸James Lee🇺🇸 (@leepd84) November 6, 2021

Back when we actually had editors.

— Marie Ryan (@AustereInfidel) November 6, 2021

Sure, when they were used sparingly, reluctantly. Now we're just given "Trust me, bro" as a standard?

No. I was a journalist, too. Anonymous sources are always highly suspect without some serious find of documentation to back them up. And they haven't produced that lately.

— EB. Just EB. (@TheUnVerBastard) November 5, 2021

It's all tabloid junk gossip these days. The reputations of the reporters are in the garbage. "So and so I won't name said so and I've absolutely nothing else to back it up!" Doesn't fly.

— EB. Just EB. (@TheUnVerBastard) November 5, 2021

Perhaps YOU did that. I don’t know who you even are. But your profession in general has burned the trust that is required in order for anonymous sources to be used.

As a result, anonymously sourced stories must be assumed fabricated until proven otherwise. Those are the rules.

— Brandon Letsgo (@E__Strobel) November 5, 2021

The receipts say otherwise.

— Chloe Reynolds (@chloethemilf) November 6, 2021

Really…. @RollingStone and @UVA would like a word

— Andrews Dad (@Andrew_Dad) November 6, 2021

Or you can make stuff up, apply it to an anonymous source and then wishcast it in a published story.

— Patrick M Thomas (@ceili_dancer) November 5, 2021

I hope that’s what you teach your students. And I hope if you or any of them become a managing editor somewhere, you make that a standard practice. But you’re lying to yourself if you think that’s the norm in today’s world.

— Bob (@Filmbeloh20) November 6, 2021

How can you call @GovRonDeSantis statement categorically “false,” when we know for a fact that some anonymously sourced stories in recent years have been completely fabricated? Are you seriously saying no journalist has ever made up an anonymous source? How could you know that?

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 (@ChristinaPushaw) November 5, 2021

This guy really didn’t get the responses he thought he was going to get.

Related: