What's In A Name?...

Already one call about Michael Wright's analysis this week (already posted at 27east.com) about the local GOP and the divisions within. A party official, in a mostly friendly way, objected to a story that features unnamed sources from within the party grousing. The point: Who's to say this isn't just sour grapes from a couple of individuals, rather than something worthy of a news story?

My answer: We're typically wary of doing stories that rely heavily on unnamed sources. At the same time, a story like this--which purports to discuss what's really going on beneath the "everything's fine" cover story--couldn't really be told without granting people the ability to speak candidly and not risk repercussions. In this case, the story clearly notes that one of our sources is a Republican committee member--so we're not simply stirring up "RINOs" to badmouth the party.

I'm curious what other people think of stories that involve unnamed sources. I told the person who called the truth: I'm frankly wary of such stories when I read them elsewhere. At the same time, I know the sources in this instance, and I feel comfortable that the story is fair--and, moreover, it's a story we couldn't have gotten solely on the record.

I've said it many times: I think our job isn't to report what people SAY the story is, but what the story REALLY is. You just can't rely on on-the-record sources alone to do that.

Here's the link to the story in question...would love to hear your thoughts in comments posted below:

http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/General-Interest/400847/Youth-In-GOP-See-Changes-On-Horizon