WHQR's Sunday Edition is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition here.
A few days before President Joe Biden officially abandoned his reelection bid, I heard from a reliable source that he'd be stepping away from the race, and that Vice President Kamala Harris would quickly get the nomination, naming Governor Roy Cooper -- with whom Harris had just held a boisterous campaign event in Fayetteville -- as her running mate. It was a potentially exciting scoop, but with only one source, who would have to remain anonymous, it wasn't enough to act on.
After Biden’s announcement on July 21, the Veepstakes kicked off into overdrive. Within an hour or so, ABC's Jonathan Karl was saying live on the air that Cooper was his top guess for VP. If I'm being honest, I felt a little buzz -- I know, man! -- but it still wasn't enough to report conclusively that Cooper was the pick.
A lot of North Carolina press rushed to cover the possibility while responsibly hedging their bets: could Cooper be VP, what would he bring to the table, what might prevent him from stepping into the race? (Our friends at The Assembly had a great piece, looking at the case for and against.)
But, as the next week went by, Cooper's name fell to the side, and analysts started naming other names. I felt relieved I hadn't done anything rash.
Then, on Monday night, several outlets -- including WRAL and the AP -- reported that Cooper had withdrawn from consideration, based on anonymous sources "familiar with the discussions." WRAL, notably, pegged their initial reporting on a single anonymous source (they later updated that to two anonymous sources, via CNN).
All of this became a moot point a few hours later when Cooper confirmed his withdrawal.
So, no harm, no foul? I wasn't so sure.
The issue, for me, isn’t just that anonymous sourcing can be risky – it’s also that it asks a lot of the public.
Sometimes it’s worth it because there are stories that probably can’t be told without anonymous sources. And, for that reason, we’ve used anonymous sources here at WHQR in the past, although not without extensive vetting and newsroom conversations, and never as the sole source in the story.
But in this case, it struck me as news outlets using anonymous sources, not to get at an otherwise untouchable story, but to scoop their rivals, and maybe force Cooper’s hand a few hours, or maybe days, before he would have inevitably addressed it publicly. It felt, in short, like a cheatcode, a shortcut.
That’s just my two cents, as one editor, at one outlet, in one town. And, full disclosure, I've had a lot of conversations about this with some veteran news folks, and not everyone agrees with me. As a smart person who cares enough about journalism and reporting to read this far down in the newsletter, I'm curious what you think.
