Several weeks ago, when an historic news source came into the hot spotlight of recognition from the cold of anonymity, there was a slight pause in the Michael Jackson trial re-enactments and speculation for passing consideration of serious work in journalism.
There was talk of journalism’s standards and practices, of the dilemmas that arise in newsgathering, of the good or the damage that can come of decisions made in stepping through the ethical minefields presented by those dilemmas. Given the reason for the conversation, a lot of the discussion centered on the use of anonymous sources in news stories.
In his June 13 Newsweek cover piece that explored the back story of Mark Felt, the FBI man known as Deep Throat who secretly helped The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their epic reporting about the Nixon administration, Evan Thomas hit on some of those themes and advanced the storyline when he wrote:
“How long ago, and how romantic, the story seems. Reporters are not exactly heroes these days. Anonymous sources like Deep Throat are in disrepute, and many large news organizations, including Newsweek, are under fire for their mistakes. What happened to the days when reporters were searching for truth, instead of gabbling on talk shows?”
A partial laundry list of a public punk’d by high-profile, journalistic misdeeds or poor practice: the recent fabrication scandals at The New York Times and USA Today; the suspect Bush Texas Air National Guard documents that shot down a “60 Minutes II” story about President Bush’s Vietnam commitments (or lack thereof); the overblown and overplayed New York Times stories about the alleged existence and menace of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; the Newsweek retraction of an item about a Quran being flushed in a toilet, although a government study showed several cases of Quran mistreatment by U.S. military officials all of which were propped up and undermined by anonymous or only partially identified sources.
So what does all that bad or sub-par stuff mean? Does it mean you don’t believe what you read? That you think anonymous sources give journalists a blank check to make stuff up? And what would you do when it comes to using anonymous sources?
In a nonscientific survey, The Associated Press Managing Editors National Credibility Roundtables Project questioned more than 400 editors and more than 1,600 readers from throughout the nation — including Courier-Journal editors and readers. And the survey showed that, despite that laundry list of missteps, editors and readers aren’t too far apart on the big issues as they pertain to anonymous sources:
Though most editors say they have tightened up guidelines and practices for using anonymous sources in their newsgathering, most also allow the use of anonymous sources in rare instances and with lots of strings attached.
Most readers agreed with Associated Press guidelines for the use of anonymous sources and would allow that practice to continue: The source is reliable and in a position to have accurate information; the information is not available without the anonymity; the information provided is not opinion or speculation. But, like the editors, readers wanted to see strings attached to that practice.
Ben Post, managing editor of The Courier-Journal, said the newspaper’s practice of using anonymous sources is restricted to “very rare occasions, and then it must be approved by the executive editor (Bennie Ivory) or the managing editor (himself) in his absence. And then there is deep discussion about whom the source is, the possible motivation for remaining anonymous, and the value of the information being provided and whether it can be verified through other independent means. We never would allow someone to attack someone personally and remain anonymous.”
About 70 Kentucky readers took part in the survey, many of them Courier-Journal readers.
Two responses to the question, “In general, do you think the media can do its job effectively without using anonymous sources? Would you be willing to risk never knowing about a story like Watergate in exchange for never getting inaccurate stories based on anonymous sources? Please explain”:
Beverly Byrum, a registered nurse from Louisville: “I think anonymous sources are necessary. There are stories that need to be revealed, such as Watergate, and sometimes people risk their jobs or even their lives if they are found to be the source of such stories. I know if I were in that situation, if I went to a reporter who said they had to disclose my name, I would say nothing. However, I think the reporter should use every means possible to try to verify the story, maybe to try and get from the anonymous source the names of others who can verify the story or resources which can corroborate the story. If that isn’t possible, then the reporter and the editor need to discuss, on a case by case basis, whether to run the story and why.”
Steven Frueh, a federal law enforcement officer from Lexington: “While there must be a tradeoff between never getting stories of the Watergate magnitude due to not using anonymous sources and the resulting occasional inaccurate story, there must be a strong effort to reduce the possibility of inaccurate stories as much as possible. The use of anonymous sources is an everyday occurrence for innocuous stories, and the sources are oftentimes betraying private conversations where the other conversation members expected privacy. I think that the use of these type of sources would drop dramatically if the users of these sources sat back and thought how they would feel or react if someone publicized their private conversations with their co-workers, supervisors, friends, etc.”
You’ll find a link to the national story with my column online.
And, as always, don’t be shy about letting me know what you think
