Introduction
A journalist that wants their story to be believed uses at least two named sources in a story. Using just one source that is unknown to the reader, and sometimes the reporter, for the sake of sensationalism and competition is, unfortunately, becoming a common practice. Others, including responsible journalists, firmly believe that the use of confidential or anonymous sources by journalists is essential in providing the public with vital information. This is because certain potential sources in sensitive government or business positions would not be willing to offer information without the assurance that their identity remains confidential. Many journalists view their job as a duty to inform the public regarding unscrupulous dealings by those who wield power over the public. Those that advocate free speeches argue that if the media employs the use of anonymous sources conscientiously in a genuine effort to generate credible stories, the significance of the information outweighs any apprehensions regarding the origination of those sources. Both lines of reasoning are valid yet each must admit the other’s weaknesses. There is a cost for freedom of the press and speech including the ability for journalists to keep confidentialities.
The benefits of using confidential sources
Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward exposed what became known as Watergate by use of an anonymous source (Deep-throat). They lived up to their journalistic responsibility by exposing unlawful conduct by government officials including President Nixon who resigned from office in 1973.
This one anonymous source brought down the most powerful man in the world and catapulted Woodward and Bernstein to rock-star status (Willing, 2006). The use of anonymous sources became popular during this time because of Watergate and the publication by the New York Times of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. This story enraged the American public as it revealed that the Pentagon intentionally and repeatedly lied about events in Vietnam to gain support for the continuation of the war (Smith & Jones, 2006). More recently, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was broken by the actions of an anonymous soldier.
These examples showcase the benefit of using confidential sources in a story. If used responsibly and sparingly, the use of anonymous sources assists journalists in their honorable quest of being the citizen’s watchdog, a responsibility given to the press by the nation’s founding fathers.
The right to use confidential resources
By today’s standards, the media in the 18th Century lacked credibility. Most newspapers were biased and editorialized throughout stories without apology. Still, the people depended on the media to keep a check on the government. If not the press, then who would keep an eye on government officials? This assumes of course that those that wield absolute power over the people may be subject to corruption. Journalists often cite the Constitution when asked to reveal sources they wish not to expose. The Supreme Court has agreed with this position. In 1972, the Court ruled that the Constitution protects the right of a reporter to not reveal confidential sources. According to Justice William O. Douglas, “A reporter is no better than his source of information. If he can be summoned to testify in secret before a grand jury, his sources will dry up and the attempted exposure, the effort to enlighten the public, will be ended” (Paulson, 2006). While the motivations of journalists vary, newspapers and other forms of media services offer a peek behind the curtain of corporate and governmental activities.
This service would be severely hampered if ‘whistleblowers’ had no guarantee of anonymity. Corporate officials such as those of BALCO and Enron would ultimately be less accountable to the public if not for the protection guarantee of the anonymous source (Rogers, 2005).
The threat of using anonymous sources
Anonymous sources, if not used responsibly, can destroy the credibility of the journalist and the media source, a commodity neither can survive without. An example of a publication that has lost credibility due to faulty anonymous information, the French newspaper L’Est Republicain published a story, along with a large accompanying headline, proclaiming that Osama Bin Laden was dead. The source was what they later described by the newspaper as ‘a usually credible source.’ (“French Want Probe”, 2006). Also relying on a confidential source, Time Magazine reported that Bin Laden “has become seriously ill and may have already died from a water-borne illness” (“Rumors Swirl”, 2006).
The use or overuse of anonymous sources leads to lazy habits including erroneous reporting. It also allows unscrupulous newspapers to run a new scandal on the front page every day and always be first to publish big stories, not necessarily accurately but first. A dedicated journalist craves credibility but risks losing it when anonymous sources are used irresponsibly. Readers view unnamed sources with skepticism, as they rightly should. How does the reader know that this ‘anonymous source’ is not a figment of the author’s imagination used because they needed more copy in the story? (Coronel, 2005).
Conclusion
Conversations regarding the proper and ethical use of anonymous sources are ongoing and compelling but should first include an accurate description of the terminologies involved. The term anonymous source refers to a person who remains unknown to even the journalist.
This could take the form of a tip given by an anonymous person whose quotes are not in the story but have helped point the way to the truth. This information must be verified by other means to be deemed credible. As stated before, it’s an issue of trust. How can the reporter trust information provided by someone that doesn’t trust the reporter with their identity? A confidential source is known to and judged credible by the reporter. Ethical journalists that misidentify anonymous with confidential sources erode their credibility. Accurate terms for a confidential source include “unidentified sources, unnamed sources, or undisclosed sources” (Buttry, 2006). Whatever the term used, the story can only have as much credibility as the journalist writing it. This produces both positive and negative journalistic outcomes. It’s the price we endure to enjoy the freedom of the press.
References
Buttry, Steve. (2006). “You Didn’t Hear This from Me…” Ethics Resources. Web.
Coronel, Sheila. (2005). “Unnamed Sources.” Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Web.
“French Want Probe into Bin Laden Leak.” (2006). CBS News. Web.
Paulson, Ken. (2006). “Use Unnamed Sources Rarely, but Protect Them.” USA Today. Web.
Rogers, Dick. (2005). “The Use and Misuse of Unnamed Sources.” San Francisco Chronicle. Web.
“Rumors Swirl About Bin Laden’s Health.” (2006). CBS News. Web.
Smith, Kevin & Jones, Alex. (2006). “Pentagon Papers Author Daniel Ellsberg Says 9/11 Deserves Further Investigation.” InfoWars. Web.
Willing, Richard. (2006). “Journalists See Troubling Court Trend.” USA Today. Web.