monkey;2490282 said:
It only took 5 pages to post a reason :laugh2:
There are a couple of flaws in in the logic though:
1. It cites a couple of bad uses of anonymous sources as to why they are useless. Using an anonymous source from an untrustworthy person or without corroboration is just the same as using a known source without corroboration.
2. Even when knowing the source, John Q. Public still doesn't know what the source said or didn't say, and also doesn't know what the reporter left out or misquoted. I have known a couple of people interviewed for stories in local paper, who have said they were surprised by what was said they said in the actual story. One even refused to be interviewed for future stories because of feeling as if his statements were often misrepresented.
3. Readers would still be dependent on the reporters' understanding of the source even if the source is known, and the (assumed) knowledge/expertise of the source. I may not know enough about the subject or the source to know how qualified they are to talk about said story subject.
4. The vast majority of stories read in non-local publications are not verifiable even if you do know the source. It's great to know that the CEO of such and such corporation said something, but the chances of me being able to verify this information are poor. So, knowing the source would help to some degree in determining truthfulness, but only to a modest degree in some situations.
IMO: It's best to be skeptical of any story that isn't corroborated by multiple sources (known or unknown) and even then to read the story with a discerning eye. And don't even get me started about articles talking about research studies or findings......
Great point.
A number of professions and disciplines rely on anonymous sources or deal with anonymous sources in some form or fashion. Just a few ...
police
lawyers
psychologists
psychiatrists
political pollsters
researchers
clergy
human resource officials
ethics commissioners
drug counselors
rape counselors
crisis pregnancy counselors
detectives
military intelligence officials
Any meaningful investigation which requires anonymity to get information would rely on anonymous sources.
Any meaningful study which seeks to explore problems that may not be discovered if anonymity is not granted would rely on anonymous sources.
Now, someone could look at a study and conclude, "I don't believe a majority of teens are having sex" or "I don't believe a majority of men beat their wives."
But that's why researchers and pollsters develop internal methodology to ensure that the information collected is as valid/accurate as possible. Hence my explanation of policies and guidelines which govern the use of anonymous sources in broadcast or print.
If not for anonymous sources, we wouldn't be as successful against terrorists attacks, police wouldn't get a start on solving crimes and government corruption wouldn't be uncovered nearly as much as it is.
Of course, anonymous sources can be abused. I've not argued otherwise.
But they're necessary not only in the field of journalism but any other field where you have to protect the confidentiality of a source.
P.S. It's ironic that in the above link the author doesn't even identify himself, gives no credentials, but rails against the uselessness of anonymous sources.
I guess that means we can dismiss his one-sided, narrow opinion.
:laugh1:
