If you want some insight into what readers think about the use of anonymous sources in reporting, you can look at how they reacted to the recent unmasking of “Deep Throat.”
To some, Mark Felt is a hero. We now know he is the FBI official who led The Washington Post to discover the Watergate scandal 30 years ago.
To others, Felt is a scoundrel who used his office to feed a personal grudge against President Richard Nixon.
Deep Throat is either the brave man who made it possible for the country to find out about their president’s criminal behavior, or he is the person who brought disgrace on the White House.
The Washington Post is either to be extolled for using an anonymous source to uncover one of the biggest political stories of the 20th century or to be chastised for taking the risk.
The debate inspired The Associated Press Managing Editors Credibility Roundtable Project to poll newspaper readers about the use of anonymous sources — to explore whether readers approve or disapprove of the tactic.
A total of 35 news organizations, including The Post and Courier, helped gather 1,611 responses from 42 states. The results are not statistically valid but are of anecdotal interest. Those who were contacted had given their local newspapers permission to contact them by email with questions.
In the survey, there was no distinction made between citing anonymous sources in stories and using anonymous sources (a la Deep Throat) to ferret out information from on-the-record sources.
Of those who responded, 44 percent indicated they were less likely to believe stories that rely on anonymous sources; 42 percent said the use of anonymous sources made no difference and 11 percent said they are more likely to believe stories using anonymous sourcing.
Local readers were in line with the national responses about confidence in stories where anonymous sources are used, but were unanimous with the exception of one reader in saying that there are times it is appropriate to use anonymous sources.
It is the practice of The Post and Courier to use unnamed sources only in cases where there is no alternative and when the editor in charge agrees that the information provided by the unnamed source is significant enough to warrant its inclusion.
In those cases, the story should explain why the source is anonymous, and the reporter must provide information about the source to the editor who might choose to double-check with the source.
Ryan Pitts, reporter with the Spokane Spokesman-Review, analyzed responses to the APME survey and said readers suggested some other restrictions:
– Newspapers should go out of their way to point it out when they use anonymous sources. That way readers can weigh for themselves the story’s credibility.
– Stories should say why the source requested to remain unnamed (unless such information would lead to the source’s identification).
– The reporter should explain that the source is connected to the story and in a position to have accurate information.
– Use anonymous sources only as supplementary material, not as the primary peg for a story.
– In the case of a consistent source, offer a “batting average” — how often the source has been right in the past.
– Discuss possible motives for this source to be providing information. Consider explaining those motives in the story.
– If an anonymous source gives you bad information, burn the source.
– Do everything possible to verify the information from your source. If there’s no corroborating evidence, hold the story because the public is willing to wait if it means reporting will be more trustworthy.
I might add another rule: Be consistently fair, accurate and careful in reporting so that your publication has the ongoing respect and trust of its readers. If readers are confident that you are trustworthy in general, they will be more likely to accept your judgment in using occasional unnamed sources.
