Answer extracted from the ACQ2 by Acquired podcast — listen to the full episode below.
How should journalists approach sources who have mixed or ulterior motives for sharing information?
Accept that every source has some self-interested motivation for talking, and don't waste energy worrying about what it is. Instead, focus on verification: confirm the information from two, three, or four independent sources, or obtain hard documentation. If the facts check out, the motive no longer matters—whether that source is a board member trying to derail a deal, a banker seeking revenge against a competitor, or anyone else with an axe to grind.
As Andrew Sorkin explains in this episode, journalism often happens on the back of sources with the worst possible motives. The insight isn't naive—it's pragmatic. Some of the best investigative stories come from people trying to sabotage someone else or advance their own interests, not from truth-seekers motivated by the public good.
The key is shifting the burden of proof. Don't authenticate the source; authenticate the story. A board member leaking details about a merger to stop it? That leak might be pure sabotage—but if you can cross-check those details with another source, with SEC filings, with email records, the source's toxicity becomes irrelevant. The documentation is what counts.
"I think it's important to understand what their motivation is. But ultimately, as long as I can confirm the information typically from two, three, four different sources, or I can get documentation of the issue, I try not to worry too much about what their ultimate incentives are."
Andrew Sorkin — Anchor, CNBC Squawk Box, and Founder of DealBook. Sorkin joined the New York Times at age 18 in 1995 and founded DealBook in 2001, growing it to over one million subscribers. He is also the co-creator of the television series Billions and author of Too Big to Fail and 1929.
This approach reflects decades of reporting on Wall Street and corporate deals. Throughout his career at the New York Times and DealBook, Sorkin has learned that the worst-intentioned sources often possess the most valuable information—they have skin in the game, access, and incentive to talk. The journalist's job isn't moral gatekeeping; it's verification.
The practical framework is simple: understand the motivation (so you know what bias to account for), but let the verification process do the heavy lifting. Multiple independent confirmations or hard evidence trump source credibility every time. This separates rigor from naïveté, and allows you to publish stories that might otherwise stay buried because you were too squeamish about who was telling you the truth.
Want to hear how Sorkin balances this philosophy with the ethics of his job, and how he manages to do all of this across multiple platforms and projects simultaneously? Listen to the full episode.
See also
How does a media professional manage multiple demanding roles simultaneously across television, newsletters, and books?
Andrew Ross Sorkin's day typically begins around 4:30 in the morning, when he wakes up and checks email and messages under the covers. He spends about an hour before Squawk Box starts on final tweaks to DealBook.
What was the first advertiser for DealBook when it launched?
The original advertiser for DealBook was Brooks Brothers. Sorkin notes that while Brooks Brothers is still in business today, they have gone in and out of financial difficulty over the years.
How did a reporter launch a daily email newsletter in 2001, over 15 years before Substack emerged?
Andrew Ross Sorkin started DealBook in 2001 after returning to New York from London, where he was covering mergers and acquisitions. Frustrated that Wall Street lacked a comprehensive daily briefing, he created one.