There's a widespread debate in media circles about how often to use anonymous sources, and I understand why it is sometimes necessary. That said, the practice is now so commonly abused that many journalists feel no compunction whatsoever in passing off anonymous rumors as credible news. Take this 'article' by Peter Cohn of CongressDaily, which purports to be about a possible successor to Charlie Rangel on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, but quickly devolves into a gossip-y and entirely anonymous set of industry lobbyists unaccountably sniping at the progressive Democrat next in line for the job, Pete Stark.
It starts with an anonymous Republican lobbyist - who has no vote in Congress - discussing elected official Charlie Rangel.
"He's a long way from going down," said a GOP tax lobbyist.
Then an anonymous Democrat - aide, member, lobbyist, someone - goes on to attack Stark. Apparently they are close to leadership, which rules out, well, perhaps Dennis Kucinich.
"The conventional wisdom is he would have a tough time getting elected chairman," said a Democrat close to leadership.
Then it moves to a nice claim by 'sources' that Stark is prone to 'gaffes', ie. statements that make people in DC uncomfortable.
From suggesting Republicans were sending troops to Iraq to die "for the president's amusement" to referring to a former GOP lawmaker as a "little fruitcake," Stark is prone to gaffes, sources said.
Of course, anonymous industry lobbyists must have their say, and the anonymous business community registers its firm disapproval.
"The guy behind [Rangel] is just not tenable. Republicans would have a field day," an industry lobbyist said, while noting the business community would "go nuclear. It would just be open warfare."
