There's No Such Thing as a Disinterested Source

James Surowiecki's September 3 New Yorker column goes after one of the big drivers of the "crisis" coverage that currently dominates business news -- self-serving sources.

When a CEO, flack or activist is quoted, the self-interest is obvious. But over the years, Jack Flack has learned that he should never read a single quote from a supposed independent party without contemplating exactly why the source of that quote would make such a statement, given that talking to journalists takes time and often involves risk.

In business news, the independent source usually manifests one or more of three basic motivations.

1. Sells themselves. Consultants, gurus and trade pub editors know that being cited as a source by major news media increases their credibility. Many know that pithiness today will get you more calls from reporters tomorrow. For example, in Claire Atkinson's NYT story today, marketing consultant Robert Passikoff shows why he's often a go-to quote machine for marketing reporters, with this zippy summary of Ford's brand woes.

"There is a brand association test. If I said Mercedes, you're likely to say luxury; Volvo: safety; Toyota: reliability. With Ford, you're likely to hear the sound ummm. That is the sound of a brand dying."

2. Pump or diss a stock/market. Tighter disclosure regs have made this a much subtler exercise than it was a decade ago, but it is still the main game played on CNBC each morning. No sell-side analyst will ever tell a reporter anything that is not intended to justify their current position on a stock.

3. Pressure action. As Surowiecki notes, Marek Fuchs recently identified a great example of this motivation by pointing out Angelo Mozilo's blatant attempts to use the news media to poke "the Fed to paper over the effects of years of goofball loans."

What third-party motivations did Jack forget?