Our old friend, the person familiar with the situation, has been hard at work in the past few days. He (or she, since we do not know his or her identity) has popped up all over the place.
In The Wall Street Journal today, for example, "informed individuals" have been chattering about the severance package that Stan O’Neal can expect when he steps down as chairman and chief executive of Merrill Lynch. Meanwhile, "people familiar with the firm" told the Journal on Monday that Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, was a prime contender to succeed Mr O’Neal.
But the person familiar with the situation is an equal opportunity blabber. He (or she) also turned up in the Financial Times on Monday. People "familiar with the matter" predicted that Blackstone Group could walk away from a deal to buy part of PHH, a unit of General Electric. Simultaneously, people "close to the situation" suggested that the Ford family had cooled on the idea of selling the family firm.
For the reader, of course, this is baffling. Let us assume (rightly, I think) that reporters from the WSJ and the FT are professionals. That being so, they do not bother to talk to people who are ignorant of what is going on. Of course, their stories reflect what "people familiar with the situation" – usually those most directly involved – tell them. So what is the point of these circumlocutions?
Usually, it suits the "person familiar with the situation" best to talk without being quoted directly. It also makes it easier for him to spread disinformation without being caught out awkwardly later. The reporter seeking a story accepts a briefing on these terms as better than nothing.
As a journalist, I assume that when a story says that Mr X will do something, according to people familiar with the situation, that means that Mr X has been talking to the reporter himself but does not care to be quoted on the record. The "person familiar with the situation" is similar to the "friend of" the politician in Britain who discloses what he or she plans to do next.
But, if the reporter believes the facts to be correct, why not just report them without this recourse to vague attribution? The original blame, I think, lies with the US journalistic establishment, which insists on stories being sourced. Rather than a fact being stated baldly, it requires someone – even a person who is not named – to be identified as the source.
The American media virus has now spread around the world. Gangs of people familiar with the situation are roaming the world’s financial media. I find it silly.
