Ethical Elkind?

In honor of the recent visit by Mr. Elkind, I thought is was only appropriate to comment on what I found unethical about Elkind’s critically acclaimed novel The Smartest Guys in the Room. Although Elkind’s book easily captured me as a reader and brought me into both the general business world and the world of Enron with descriptive language and clear translations of business jargon to common English, The Smartest Guys in the Room wasn’t perfect. Elkind’s writing throughout the story showed one large flaw that could not be overseen: extremely poor attribution and sourcing.
First there was a great amount of use of anonymous commentary in the story. As a journalist, this bothered me. As stated in the 2009 AP Stylebook:
Under AP’s rules material from anonymous sources may be used only if: [a] The material is information and is not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report. [b] The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source. [c] The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information…Explain in the story why the sources requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information. The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting “a source” is not allowed. Be as descriptive as possible.
The anonymity used could have been seen as a means to garner background information; however, the majority of the information gathered from anonymous sources were opinion. A great example of the frivolity of a large some of the anonymous comments comes when Elkind and McLean quoted a nameless credit officer from an unspecified Wall Street firm saying, “We thought Enron was a very funky animal that kept getting funkier and funkier” (340). This quote added absolutely nothing to the story. I had no idea who it came from, and the description of the source was so ambiguous that I paid it no mind. Further, the substance of the quote was poor at best. Also, Elkind and his co author never mentioned why any sources were anonymous. As a reader, I feel that this prevarication takes away a great deal of transparency. It is the author’s ethical obligation to provide the reader with a sense of legitimacy coupling his/her work. Without sourcing or attribute, I have no basis to believe whether or not the information he provided was truth. I am forced to go off of blind faith, and he remains free of not “abusing” his ability to utilize anonymous sources.
When sources were given a name and a face behind them, none of their quotes were attributed. There should have been hundreds of endnotes littering the last printed pages of the book. Instead, there is nothing and the reader is left contemplating the legitimacy of the entire story. Elkind and his co author empowered the readers with a great deal of trust, for the readers had no idea if the information presented to them by the authors was completely falsified or not. A lack of attribution is synonymous with a lack of credibility in the journalism world. This coupled with the inherent lack of credibility created through anonymity is the author’s major downfall in regards to the research and presentation of the book. Despite these “flaws,” The Smartest Guys in the Room was exceptionally engaging and entertaining. It provided an insider’s approach to the famous Enron story and by capturing the personalities and actions of the 125 characters noted in the story, Elkind and his co authour created an easily accessible work of non-fiction business literature.