Posts such as "Survey: Want to discredit your reporting? Use anonymous sources..." are good reminders that journalists should do a reality check before they rely on anonymous sources, asking themselves whether it's necessary and whether they've done all they could to get the information from people willing be named. On the other hand, regardless of what the gatekeepers do, sources who want anonymity can use web sites to directly reach an audience.
I'm not saying that journalists should lower their standards just because this possibility exists. I am saying they should be aware that because they don't control information as they used to, it behooves them to work harder than ever at getting the story on the record from multiple named sources. Doing so will enable them to write more authoritative stories than those that are sourced anonymously, giving the readers a place to turn when they run across loosely verified information.
I've got one gripe with the post referenced above, which appears on Morph: The Media Center Blog. While author Lisa Stone's main point about credibility and use of anonymous sources is on target, she overstates the results of the survey on which she bases her comments. I see this kind of thing a lot, not just by the media but by politicians and others trying to use surveys to support a point of view.
Example: Stone's lead says, "A new survey indicates the best way for a news organization to discredit a story with American news readers may be to rely on anonymous sources." Since the survey didn't ask people about other things that could discredit a story, it's a stretch to say that relying on anonymous sources is "the best way" (even with the "may" qualifier later in the sentence). Perhaps having a lot of factual errors or spelling errors does more to discredit a story. The survey didn't make such comparisons.
Also, the third graf says that "a majority of respondents agreed that news stories that rely on unnamed sources should not be published." That statement also is pushing it a bit because while 53 percent took that position, the survey had a sampling error of 3.5%.
These are minor points -- if anyone wants to say I'm nitpicking, I couldn't disagree -- and overall the survey data supported Stone's position on anonymous sources. But little things like this also affect credibility with readers, which was what Stone's post was all about.
Comments