Trump hounded the media over their use of anonymous sources, sending them into a frenzy. However, now the media is highlighting the fact that Devin Nunes isn’t revealing his intelligence sources to anyone, including his own committee, in the Russia investigation.
So which is right? Should there be a different standard for the media and government officials regarding anonymous sources?
On Fox News’ show Media Buzz President Trump stated, “They [the media] shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody’s name. Let their name be put out there.” A correspondent on the show responded by saying, “There is a big difference between anonymous sourcing and anonymous quotes. You need to have anonymous sources. His point that journalists are making up anonymous sources is absolutely wrong.”
The New York Post quoted Nunes saying, “We will never reveal those sources and methods.” In response to Nunes’ statement, the Huffington Post published an article with the subtitle, “Nunes is supposed to lead a credible investigation into Trump administration contacts with Russia.”
I think it’s a complete double standard on both sides. Trump wants the media to stop using anonymous source but he’s said nothing about Nunes’ sources. Whereas, the media has refuted Trump’s allegation that anonymous sources are made up and now they are arguing that Nunes’ anonymous sources aren’t “credible.”
Both Trump and the media need to take a step back and look at the inconsistency in their positions. Either accept that anonymous sources are a good way to find information, allowing people to speak without fear of retribution, or reject it across the board on the basis that they are not reliable or credible.