One of the main points of the new book, “Fixing Post-Truth Politics,” is the corrosive effect that the use of anonymous sources in the mainstream media has had on both journalistic integrity and the public’s trust in what is being reported.

An example of the highest profile occurred during former FBI Director James Comey’s recent testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey referred to a New York Times article which led with this:

“Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.”

Asked by Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, whether the story was “almost entirely wrong,” Comey answered, “Yes.”

In response to a similar question by Sen. James Risch, Idaho Republican, Mr. Comey said that “in the main, it was not true.”

Comey told the Senate committee:

“The challenge — and I’m not picking on reporters—about writing stories about classified information, is that people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on.”

In other words, the Times got bad information from sources they permitted to remain anonymous. This was a case where the Times did not independently verify the information and allowed the people who gave it to them to remain blameless for their inaccuracy by being anonymous.

From “Fixing Post-Truth Politics:”

This has become common in all types of media, contrary to news policies of decades ago when this was not permitted. It was not allowed because the thought at the time was if the source was not willing to have the information attributed to him or her directly, how true or good could it be?

It was a way to ensure that news consumers received thoroughly vetted information. If a source lied to a reporter, the reader would know the identity of the liar because the information would be attributed. There would be a trail to follow if the information reported to the public proved to be incorrect or false. When unnamed sources are used, the only people who know the source of information are the reporter and his or her editor.

Not using a source’s name makes that person much more likely to talk about something controversial or classified than someone who can be held accountable for making the statements.

This practice is widespread throughout mainstream media, according to “Fix Post-Truth Politics:”

An easy way to track the prevalence of this practice is to visit http://schaver.com/anonymous for that website’s Anonymous Source Tracker.

The website says it tracks these online news sources: ABC News, AL.com, Associated Press, BBC, Bleacher Report, Bloomberg, Boston Globe, Boston.com, Business Insider, BuzzFeed, CBS News, CNET, CNN, Chicago Tribune, Daily Beast, Daily Mail, Detroit Free Press, ESPN, Elite Daily, Engadget, Examiner, Fox News, Gawker, Guardian, Houston Chronicle, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, MIC, MLive.com, MSN, Mashable, Mirror, NBC News, NJ.com, NPR, New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times, Politico, Reuters, SFGate, Salon, Slate, Tech Crunch, Telegraph, The Atlantic, The Blaze, The Intercept, Time, U.S. News, USA Today, Upworthy, Vice, Vox, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Yahoo.

A February 2017 check of that website showed it displaying nearly 16,000 stories from these online news outlets that used anonymous sourcing. Those 16,000 stories covered about the previous 10 months. Do the math, and you learn that more than 1,500 stories produced monthly by the nation’s larger news organizations contain anonymous sourcing.

There are a number of factors as to why this change has occurred over recent decades.

With literally an innumerable number of news outlets available to any person at any one time, the primary way to gain the attention of news consumers is to be first with a story. These days, if you are not first, you are last. Being first means people are more likely to respond to alerts about breaking news on their mobile devices. And those folks are more likely to share it via their social media networks, increasing the chance of a story going “viral.”

If two news outlets have the same story, and one decides to go with it using an unnamed source, while the other holds it for further vetting and getting an on-the-record confirmation, the unnamed-source story is going to make it online first. And while it certainly is not the most complete or most vetted story, it achieves the business goal of being first – greatly increasing the number of shares and click-throughs (and as an extension, impressions) over subsequent versions.

Click-throughs are the key to revenue in today’s digital media economy. Most high-volume websites include advertising that pays the website owner based on how many impressions the web page gets. Clicks on the ads themselves are another revenue stream.

Electronic news sources like radio and television are not immune from the need to post information online as soon as possible. They are now on a level playing field with the newspapers in many ways, because they are subject to the same low market rates for banner advertising as newspapers or anyone else who owns a website.

The “legacy news media” — namely newspapers and television — are in survival mode. Less and less of their revenue is coming from ads placed on their pages or on their air, and more revenue is coming from ads placed online. Unfortunately, the going rate for online advertising is much less than print or broadcast ads. The revenue bucket is continually shrinking for the “legacy media.” The need to get as much revenue as possible out of digital is forcing news organizations to make decisions they would not have made 20 or even 10 years ago.

As standards become relaxed due to heightening pressure to be first with news stories, we can, unfortunately, expect more turns of events like this.

“Fixing Post-Truth Politics” is available free for your Kindle through Wednesday.