Consumer Action Taskforce:Anonymity and vagueness in citations

A Critical Examination of "trust me bro"

🚨 Important Context

The phrases "a person familiar with the matter" and "on information and belief" should not immediately be trusted, and should be subject to extreme scrutiny, as they can be deliberately misused to lend credibility to unsubstantiated or even fabricated claims. These terms & phrase have real-world uses in journalism & legal documents; an aide to the president might not want to open themselves up to the ire of his millions of supporters, and a high ranking employee may not wish to get fired or prosecuted for breaking an NDA. However, they can serve as shields for bad actors to spread misinformation or make baseless allegations.

📰 "A Person Familiar with the Matter"

A Phrase Requiring Intense Skepticism

This journalistic attribution should invite intense skepticism. It can be exploited easily:

The phrase may reference a person that does not exist
It can be used to launder false information through seemingly credible channels
It provides perfect cover for those intentionally spreading misinformation
Bad actors can use this phrase to create the illusion of insider knowledge
Multiple outlets may cite the same questionable source, creating a false appearance of corroboration

For instance:

Newspaper A reports something based on "a person familiar with the matter"
Newspaper A is highly reputable.
Newspaper B reports on what newspaper A said, since newspaper A is highly reputable.
Newspaper B does not do their due diligence to figure out whether "a person familiar with the matter" exists, or is trustworthy.
Credible blogger sees newspaper A & B have both reported on this story.
Credible blogger believes two newspapers of value would not do this if it were not real.
redditor reads credible blogger, confirms news stories exist.
redditor posts to reddit
story ends up on front page with 50,000 upvotes based on a complete fabrication

⚖️ "On Information and Belief"

Legal Language as a Potential Shield

This legal phrase serves a real purpose in preliminary pleadings. This can be also be weaponized:

It allows parties to make slanderous, sweeping allegations without any current evidence
Bad actors can use it to spread damaging claims while avoiding defamation liability
The law states "innocent until proven guilty". However, the court of public opinion will often wonder why a top legal scholar or attorney general is going after you with the "where there's smoke, there's fire" fallacy.

This can be used to generate media coverage of baseless allegations
Claims made under this standard don't have to be substantiated for lasting damage to be done

🚩 Red Flags for Information Consumers

When encountering these phrases, be careful for the following:

Claims that seem designed to generate controversy or damage reputations
Information that only comes from anonymous sources without real evidence
Multiple outlets citing the same singular unnamed source.
- Figuring out the source of a story, and whether they are real, takes time and effort.
- This time & effort might result in realizing the story is not real.
- Not being able to report on the story, due to it not being real, often means the time spent investigating it was for nothing.
- There is minimal incentive to invest time into reducing one's own paycheck.
Allegations that remain unsubstantiated even after significant time has passed
Claims that contradict on-the-record statements or documented evidence
Stories that rely entirely on anonymous sourcing for major claims

🛡️ Protect Yourself from Manipulation

To avoid being misled by bad actors using these phrases:

BE AWARE OF YOUR PRE-EXISTING BIASES & DO NOT LET THEM LOWER YOUR STANDARDS WHEN READING MATERIALS
BE AWARE OF WHEN YOUR PRE-EXISTING BIASES ARE CAUSING AN EMOTIONAL REACTION & BE HONEST ABOUT IT.
Treat attribution utilizing these terms as inherently suspect until it's genuinely verified
Remember that these phrases can be used when no actual source exists
Look for concrete evidence rather than chains of anonymous attribution
Consider who benefits from the information being spread
Consider that a story not being real means nothing to report on.
Consider that people who are monetarily compensated for reporting stories, may want stories to report on.

📋 Professional Standards and Ethics

We must hold ourselves to a higher standard than the individuals and companies we report on. Simply because someone else tells a lie or abuses the public, does not give us the right to lower ourselves to the same standard.

📝 Conclusion

While "a person familiar with the matter" and "on information and belief" have legitimate uses, they can be damning ways to destroy reputations & lives by people with an axe to grind. Readers, editors, and content writers should approach these attributions with skepticism & assume the possibility that no real source or evidence exists until proven otherwise. Never allow your pre-existing biases to override your journalistic standards.