That is the problem with anonymous sources. They often give too much attention to stories that should not have any attention, and allow criticism of well-known figures by individuals shielded by the anonymity the media grants them.

The use of anonymous sources by the establishment media has backfired before.

An instance of this is when CNN ran a story about Trumps former personal attorney Michael Cohen knowing the president had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer.

One of the unnamed sources in that story ended up being Cohens lawyer, Lanny Davis, who later admitted I did not know the details about that meeting, and I should not have encouraged any reporter, according to Fox News.

Davis had some advice for the media, Dont even float stories on background, which is our expression for anonymously, unless you have a certainty of the facts, and youre asking reporters to go look to confirm those facts.

Anti-Trump stories or any news stories, for that matter based on anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt until the source is revealed. And even then, some skepticism is definitely in order. 

Judith Miller: The anonymous op-ed in the NY Times merited publication

I worked at The New York Times for most of my career. I know the paper. The editorial section, which is separate from the news section, would not have published an anonymous op-ed without the consent of the publisher and a consensus among editorial page editors that the views expressed about President Trump needed to be heard.

But was that the right call?

The extraordinary column was published Wednesday, a day after initial excerpts emerged from Bob Woodwards new book, Fear: Trump in the White House.

Some say the essay was the pathetic me too effort by The New York Times to match the scoops in Woodwards book published in The Washington Post.

Others say the op-ed just reiterated what most people who have been watching this White House closely already know: This is a president like no other. The op-ed reinforced the books disturbing portrait of a vain, venal, volatile man who has a vague relationship with the truth in a nations capital that has become crazytown.

That is not new. But the fact that someone senior in the Trump administration claims to be part of an internal resistance dedicated to thwarting parts of the presidents agenda and protecting the nation against his worst inclinations is news. So is the fact that the author of the op-ed was willing to say so in one of the nations most influential newspapers.

In my view, with some reservations, those sentiments merited publication.

Make no mistake. Publishing such an anonymous essay was an unusual, though not unprecedented decision by the newspaper of record.

And people who agree with President Trump that the anonymous assault was cowardly have a point when they argue that its author should have resigned, or accept being fired rather than continue working for a president he or she believes is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

Imagine what Democrats would have said had if someone in President Obamas inner circle had publicly denounced his missteps or character flaws with similar disdain.

The New York Times has been struggling, as have other newspapers, with how to cover Donald Trump since the early days of his candidacy.

If youre a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nations worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? Jim Rutenberg, now the papers media columnist, wrote in August 2016. It seemed inevitable, he wrote, that such journalists would become more oppositional.

Because so many reporters and editors see the president as ignorant, erratic, and hence, dangerous, their reporting has often reflected that view. So do the swipes and sneering at him that slip, almost unconsciously at times, into news stories that according to the papers tradition are supposed to contain facts, not opinion.

But opposition has also led Times reporters to uncover important facts about the presidents cozy relationships with dictators, his familys and senior staff members conflicts of interest and self-dealing, and Special Counsel Robert Muellers ongoing investigation into Russias interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The papers coverage, along with that of most other legacy newspapers, has been overwhelmingly negative, President Trumps supporters complain.

Even the unnamed essayist felt compelled to acknowledge the administrations accomplishments effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more. But such achievements were made despite not because of the presidents leadership style, the author added in his or her devastating critique.

Of course, President Trump is furious. But what haunts some of us is not the supposedly fake news about him reported by the press, but the presidents own actions.

President Trumps missteps ripping children from their parents arms at the border, dissing Americas intelligence community and siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the press conference after their summit in Helsinki, his ugly tweets during Sen. John McCain funeral reveal who the real Donald Trump is.

Even though the economy is growing impressively and employment is rising, the presidents sinking poll numbers despite his false claims to have the best polls and greatest popularity ever suggest that some Americans are beginning to sour on his non-stop reality show. They will make the ultimate call on his presidency. And well begin to see their verdict in November.