Week 9

Ryan Pitt’s article, “Readers: Anonymous Sources Affect Media Credibility,” was yet another example of readers voicing their concerns about the way news stories are being reported.  Journalists too often assume they know better than their readers, and those readers are increasingly disillusioned about the stories they read. Pitt’s article articulated this concern by focusing on a specific aspect of journalism that seems to disturb readers: anonymous sources.

In the article, readers from all over the country give their opinions about anonymous sources and how and when they should be used – if it all.  The consensus is that readers are inherently distrustful of anonymous sources and would rather wait for a story than get a story that is only substantiated by an anonymous source. Although journalists are, in theory, on the same page as their readers with regard to anonymous sources, the reality is that journalism is a job just like any other. Although journalists should always have integrity and prioritize honest and straightforward reporting, sometimes breaking that big story before anyone else gets in the way of journalistic integrity.  

Pitt says that readers think journalists often pursue scoops to the point that they sacrifice accuracy. “Seeking verification is the most important thing a reporter can do; the public says it’s willing to wait for a more trustworthy news report,” he says. Journalists rush to publish stories under the guise of getting information to readers, but as the information in the article illustrates, readers aren’t looking for scoops – they expect accurate information. Using anonymous sources, though sometimes necessary, could often be avoided by holding a story and either giving the source time to consider going on the record or finding sources who are willing to be named.

The American Journalism Review Web site has an article by Alicia Shepard called “Anonymous Sources.” Whereas the previous reading focused mostly on readers’ responses to anonymous sources, Shepard’s article shows that editors are just as uncomfortable with using anonymous sources as readers are with trusting them. The article says that in a 1979 survey of newspaper editors, 81 percent of them said that anonymous sources are “inherently less believable,” but that they felt forced to use anonymous sources because of competition with other newspapers.

Shouldn’t the justification of anonymous sources be that they help provide readers with crucial information that they would not have otherwise had? I understand that newspapers are businesses and have to operate as such, but when editors and readers alike are decrying anonymous sources as irresponsible and unbelievable, why do we keep seeing them used in high profile stories?

In the reading, Shepard cites the irresponsible use of anonymous sources in news coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial, but also points out Deep Throat’s legitimate and irreplaceable contributions to the Watergate investigation.  Shepard also discusses Janet Cooke’s fabrications in her child heroin addict story, which reminded me of our case study a few weeks ago; Cooke’s story was a perfect example of how, if her editors had only questioned her about the story and the sources she used, they would have saved themselves the embarrassment and tarnished reputation that resulted from the story’s publication.

Many editors quoted in Shepard’s article say that they would prefer if anonymous sources were banned completely. Bob Woodward, however, argues that important White House and other government stories often depend on anonymous sources, saying, “When you are reporting on inside the White House, the Supreme Court, the CIA or the Pentagon, you tell me how you’re going to get stuff on the record. Look at the good reporting out of any of those institutions – it’s not on the record.” Woodward is right that a lot of those stories include anonymous sources, but his justification of their use – that readers need to “find out what really happened” – doesn’t always hold salt with the readers themselves. Readers polled in the first reading said they would rather have journalists hold a story than read a story based on information from anonymous sources. Whether journalists like it or not, the reality is that ensuring credibility on the readers’ terms is essential to maintain readership.

The first two readings focused on readers’ responses to anonymous sources, with the bigger picture being that readers should not be ignored when deciding what to publish. Roy Peter Clark’s article “You Be the Editor” would be beneficial for anyone, not just a journalist, to read, because it outlines some of the ethical and logistical considerations that editors make when deciding what to publish. The article focused specifically on potentially disturbing photo coverage of Iraq, and the questions included whether or not photos of charred, unrecognizable bodies should be published. What about charred bodies with recognizable faces? Would it make a difference if the bodies were Iraqi or American? These are all tough issues, and there are also questions about cropping and editing photos, as well as questions about potential consequences of publication. One of the questions concerning consequences is “Would it concern you that publication of the image might turn public opinion for or against the war in Iraq?”