Speaking of Anonymous... 'Slate' Has Something to Say
Slate's journalism top cop Jack Shafer spends part of his 'Press Box' column this week beating himself up for indulging an anonymous source in his examination of New Yorker writers Malcolm Gladwell and James Surowiecki's outside speaking engagements.
Before actually getting down to looking at whether the two writers are, indeed, in some sort of conflict of interest over their speaking gigs, Shafer has a little self-flagellating to do:
I've repeatedly criticized other reporters for relying on anonymous sources, so I recognize the irony of me writing a piece based on an anonymous allegation. One important difference here, not necessarily in my favor, is that even I don't know who's throwing the mud balls at Gladwell and Surowiecki, whereas most reporters who publish anonymous comments know the identity of their anonymice. Please forgive me.
Okay, Jack. We forgive you. Jeez. But we cannot—simply cannot!—forgive you for dropping this tantalizing (to about three people) detail without naming names:
Also, I'll admit that Anonymouse goaded me into writing by claiming 1) that nobody would dare touch the subject because they all aspire to work for The New Yorker and 2) that Slate would ignore it because Gladwell is Slate Editor Jacob Weisberg's close friend and Surowiecki, a former Slate columnist, dates a Slate staffer.
A journalist dating another journalist? And you won't tell us who? That, my friend, is unforgivable...
Oh, we can't stay mad at you, Jack Shafer! Come give us some sugar, big guy! Group hug, anyone?