The world of journalism is filled with many practices that lend integrity to both the reporters and to the newspapers. Many of those practices are very black and white, while others fall within that gray, shaded area of uncertainty. This is what makes journalism as a field of employment and of study no so clear cut.
One of those practices within this field is the practice of using anonymous sources. This is a practice that is often debated upon, and one of those practices that lies in that gray area. Should anonymous sources be used? Shouldn't they be used? Do they lower the integrity of a reporter/newspaper? Even though all of these, plus many more, questions arise, the use of anonymous sources should be allowed and not debated upon as if it’s a terrible thing for journalists to practice.
What exactly is an anonymous source? An anonymous source is a person that is used for information in a news story, that remains unnamed in name, background information, and title.
There are two main reasons of why anonymous sources should be allowed and why this subject should not be debated on. The first of those reasons is because anonymous sources have helped greatly in making journalistic achievements in the past. And the second of those reasons is because without anonymous sources, valuable information will be with held from the reporters, and therefore the readers of the newspaper.
The first of the two reasons is because anonymous sources, in the past, have helped greatly in making journalistic achievements. This biggest anonymous source used in journalism history, had to be “Deep Throat” the anonymous source that Woodward and Bernstein used in the uncovering Washington Post story (or rather stories) about the Watergate Scandal.
Without the use of an anonymous source (in this particular case) Woodward and Bernstein may not have made such an achievement. Not only that, but it could be argued that Americans (as a whole politically) may be more naive than ever believing that their President, whether it be Nixon, Clinton, or Bush can do no wrong. When the fact is, that President's too are human and can do wrong.
This was such an important source that even CBS News wrote a public eye piece about it, and where this practice truly started(http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/11/16/publiceye/entry1047891.shtml). The article addressed many issues surrounding the use of "Deep Throat" and why Woodward, Bernstein, or Ben Bradlee refused to give up their most valuable source.
Another site, Free Republic, also sheds light onto "Deep Throat" as an anonymous source with an article about when "Deep Throat" himself revealed who he was. ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1415616/posts). This article shows how anonymous sources can offer valuable information, and without them that information may never get to the reporters or to the readers who read newspapers.
"W. Mark Felt's role in guiding The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein toward a massive criminal conspiracy involving the president of the United States is a reminder of the healthy role that confidential sources can play in shining a cleansing light on wrongdoing. "
The article gave insight to the Watergate Scandal as well as to reasons of why this anonymous source decided he didn't want to remain anonymous forever. Some of those reasons being that he wasn't doing well, health wise, and that it was one way to get around a very corrupt system that the United States government goes by.
On the other hand the use of anonymous sources could lower the reporter's/newspaper's integrity, and the truth of the matter is that the information these sources give out may not be accurate information.
Reporters and the newspapers that they report for are supposed to be honest, independent, and fair among most things. If a reporter and/or newspaper do not tell where they are getting their information from can they really be considered honest or fair? It's not being honest because they are with holding valuable information from their readers, the people that support their newspaper as an institution.
This practice may also be considered unfair. When working in such a field like journalism, anything said or offered to a reporter/newspaper is fair game and should be allowed to use freely, as the newspaper so chooses.
Still, another reason of why anonymous sources could lower integrity is the fact that the information given to the reporter/newspaper by the source may not be completely true. In fact, it could be totally made up. An example of this could be Stephen Glass. Stephen Glass (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml) was a reporter who fabricated all of his stories, making up information as he went along. If a reporter, who is supposed to be honest and responsible, is capable of doing such a thing, than it is very possible for sources to make up things.
All of the reasons about shed light onto whether or not these sources should be used. And whether they are or aren't used is completely at the newspaper's and the reporter's discretion. However, because of the reasons stated about, it supports the idea that the use of anonymous sources should be used and not be debated over whether or not they should be used. Anonymous sources really are not the problem in journalism, the real problem lies in how those sources are used.
Anonymous sources do get a bad reputation due to the few people that abuse them. But overall they can be considered to be a good thing because they are helpful to the reporter, to the story, to the newspaper, and to the readers of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I definately agree that anonymous sources should be used, but only in the situations that absolutely call for it. Without "Deep Throat," the Watergate scandal would have never come to light. But if that same information was accessible from a source that was willing to have their name associated with the story, I think they should have used the named source instead (I know, there wasn't one, but hypothetically...). I think that if there's no other way to get that information and that it's integral for the story, then an anonymous source should most definately be used, but if there is a way around using one, the alternative should be used.
Unfortunately, in the climate of today's media, with the public's overall lack of trust in the news media, anonymous sources should be used as sparingly as possible. Many people associate an anonymous source with shady, underhanded dealings, and may even think that the reporter made it up just to support their story. It's a sad state of things, but anonymous sources can be good, depending on the situation.
As you mentioned, in the right situations, anonymous sources can be extremely useful and important. However, something like the Watergate case doesn't happen too often, and more often than not, anonymous sources are probably abused rather tham used the right way, like you mentioned with Glass. It all depends on the circumstances...a tricky topic for sure.
Post a Comment