If anonymous sources are used in either local or wire stories, we will explain in the story why the source must be anonymous.”
So says The Spokesman-Review Newsroom Code of Ethics.
Yet anonymous sources appear regularly in this newspaper, as they do in most papers, even those with policies that discourage the practice.
Sometimes the device is clear, as in Tuesday’s front-page wire story about the arrest of “dirty bomb” suspect Jose Padilla. After attributing certain information to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz “and other officials,” the story noted that most of the officials interviewed asked not to be identified by name.
What reasons they had for that request or, more important, what reasons the reporters had for granting it, was not explained.
Often, the anonymity of sources is camouflaged with generic descriptions such as “officials,” “authorities” or “experts” — terms that have an air of credibility without giving readers enough information to make up their own minds. And without ever explaining why people’s names were withheld.
Such terms are not always evasive.
In Wednesday’s Spokesman-Review, for example, an Associated Press story reported on a medical study that found no link between autism or bowel disease, and childhood vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella. The second paragraph attributed that reassuring news to “experts.”
But that was only for purposes of summary. In the paragraphs that followed, the reporter quoted three well-credentialed physicians and researchers by name, title and affiliation.
Those details allowed readers to judge for themselves whether the sources were believable.
Too often, though, readers must merely trust reporters and editors to pick reliable sources. And there is some evidence that trust is losing out to distrust.
According to a survey conducted by Urban & Associates for The Freedom Forum’s Free Press/Fair Press Project, more than three-fourths of the respondents were at least somewhat concerned about the credibility of a story that used anonymous sources. In fact, 45 percent said that if reporters couldn’t get anyone to confirm the critical facts on the record, the story shouldn’t run.
That kind of reader discomfort may have been on the minds of those who wrote The Spokesman-Review Newsroom Code of Ethics. Besides explaining why a source must be anonymous, they said, “we will describe the source as best we can, without divulging the identity, to give readers some clue as to the credibility of the information.”
What, then, did readers make of Wednesday’s front-page story from the Dallas Morning News? The Texas newspaper reported on its own findings that two-thirds of the top U.S. Catholic leaders have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working.
The story proudly noted that it took three months to compile the review and that it was the first of its kind. Yet it offered no explanation of how the review was conducted, whom the reporters interviewed, what documents they examined — the kind of details that would help readers evaluate the conclusions.
That information was available on The Dallas Morning News Web site (www.dallasnews.com), but not in the story that moved on the wire.
The use of anonymous sources, including sources described too vaguely for identification, shows up in locally written stories less often than in wire stories.
City Editor Richard Wagoner says requests for anonymity are always discussed with reporters. When such requests are granted, efforts are made to explain why in the story.
Wagoner said the committee that developed the ethics guidelines felt the wires should be held to the same standards. But it isn’t that simple.
“We don’t have control over the reporters who write the wire stories or the editors who edit them. Logistically, I don’t know if it’s possible to try to find out why a particularly source in a wire story is anonymous,” he said.
“Many of the stories come out of Washington, D.C., where anonymous sources are so entrenched in the culture, the media organizations there don’t know any other way to operate.”
That poses a dilemma for editors at a paper like The Spokesman-Review.
“We could make a stand on principle and refuse to run those stories,” says Wagoner. “But the risk would be that our readers wouldn’t get the news being carried by other media outlets.
“The reporters will say this whole thing leads to a double standard — one for local stories and one for the wire. And they are right. But I think holding ourselves to a higher standard than D.C. media is the right thing to do.”
