Most of what you read in the Sentinel consists of descriptions based either on what a reporter saw or, more often, on what someone said:
- The building collapsed.
- “Taxes will be reduced,” the mayor said.
- “The world will end at noon,” a source said.
Does that last one bother you?
It does me — and not just because I had plans this evening.
Who is that source? How does he or she know that the world will end? And if the source is believable, why isn’t he or she identified?
Without the answers to those questions, readers must take it on blind faith that the information is reliable. Research shows that most don’t.
The American Society of Newspaper Editors has taken a look at that situation as part of a four-year study of newspaper credibility. It asked 3,000 people nationwide, “When you see an `unidentified source’ in a news story, how concerned are you with the credibility of what’s being reported?”
Twenty-eight percent responded, “Very concerned,” and an additional 49 percent said they would be “somewhat concerned.” Another 21 percent would be “not at all concerned,” and 2 percent didn’t know.
But newspapers, including the Sentinel, continue to attribute information, both vital and mundane, to anonymous sources — often in violation of their own rules.
The Sentinel’s style guide establishes a four-part test to determine if the use of an anonymous source is legitimate:
- Is the information being attributed to the anonymous source necessary to the story?
- Can the information be obtained on the record from any other source?
- Does the anonymous source have a legitimate reason for remaining unidentified?
- Can we explain that reason (unless it is obvious from the context) in the story?
In other words, reporters should make the effort to get information on the record. That should make reliance on anonymous sources pretty rare, right?
Not quite.
A midweek search of the Sentinel’s electronic archives turned up 472 references to unidentified sources just this year and last. They ranged throughout the newspaper, but many were in wire-service articles in the A section, where foreign, national and Washington, D.C., news appears.
That makes sense. Washington is a hotbed of anonymous sources. Remember Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
Much of the reporting of those events was attributed to people who were not identified. In some cases, those shadowy figures were using gullible reporters — and, by extension, their readers — to promote a political message.
Washington reporters often try to justify their frequent use of anonymous sources on competitive grounds, insisting that if they have to identify the people they quote, they won’t be able to publish what they find.
And that would be just fine with 45 percent of the people in the ASNE survey, who said, “If it were impossible to get anyone to go ‘on the record’ to confirm the facts,” they would prefer that the story not run at all.
The problem is that the lazy practice of casually using unattributed information has spread far beyond Washington and is undermining the credibility not only of journalists who use it but of newspapers that allow it.
Readers deserve better.
