Anonymity undermines news credibility
Posted By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Posted 4 months ago
Many important stories would never see the light of day were it not for the use of anonymous sources by journalists.
The textbook example was the breaking of the Watergate scandal by theWashington Postthat caused the downfall of former U. S. president Richard Nixon.
Clearly, that story of the 1972 illegal break-in of Democratic party headquarters and the subsequent cover-up that reached into the Oval Office of the Republican president -- who resigned in disgrace--was a matter of public interest.
But it could never have been written by reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had they not offered anonymity to whistle-blowers who knew of the wrongdoing, but who needed anonymity to protect themselves.
That, however, is a far cry from how political partisans often misuse the promise of anonymity granted by an all-too-willing media to undermine political opponents, or even people in their own party.
In those cases the media, by guaranteeing anonymity, aren't defending any high journalistic principle, but are rather giving a public platform to people who don't have the courage to stand behind their own words, often for their own reasons or agenda.
Short of naming such individuals, the media should at least give as much non-identifying information as possible about who they are, if they decide their information is even worth reporting.
Why? Take a "sourced" story claiming there's a caucus revolt against Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff--which from time to time has been written about both of them.
In those cases, who is making the claim is vital to the reader's understanding of the story and its likely veracity.
If, for example, the sources are an individual or individuals known to be loyal to the leader and thus sincerely worried about where the party is heading, the story gains credibility.
But what if the sources are disgruntled supporters of other politicians in the same party who ran for the leadership and lost? In that case, the story may have no credibility and these individuals may in fact be trying to sow the dissension they claim already exists.
Unless the story at least contains that kind of basic information about the source, the reporter hasn't done his job because the reader has no way to judge the context and veracity of the report.
A different but related example occurred this week in a Toronto Starstory based on one, anonymous Conservative source claiming three unnamed Liberal MPs were contemplating crossing the floor to sit with the Tories.
Think about that. How can anyone judge the veracity of a story that doesn't name ANYONE? (The report did speculate on who one of the Liberals MPs might be by name, but that wasn't based on information supplied by the Conservative source.)
To her credit, the reporter who wrote the original story did a follow-up Wednesday in theStar,pretty much blowing up the anonymous claims made in the original report -- whereas far too often such "source-based" stories just float away, unchallenged, into the ether.
But that still leaves the issue of whether such stories should even be reported in the first place.
After all, is the fact that political partisans try to screw each other anonymously via an often complicit media really big news to Canadians?
- lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca
