Anonymous Sources in Today’s Media
The Los Angeles Times’ Code of Ethics outlines a thorough guide as to how, when and why the paper uses anonymous sources. Their guide is significantly more comprehensive than that of the Dallas Morning Star and although the New York Times’ code is praiseworthy, I admire the LA Times’ rational and explanation for their decisions. The paper reserves the use of anonymous sources as a “last resort,” asking that reporters try to verify all information with additional sources. I am particularly fond of the paper’s rational in this decision. The code states, “We are committed to informing readers as completely as possible; the use of anonymous sources compromises this important value.” It is commendable that at a time when publishers and profit play an increasingly large role in the development of newspaper policy that the Times vows to uphold its loyalty to important asset: its readers. Unidentifiable informants can confuse, mislead and misinform readers by denying them the information and context to critically understand the quotation. Without proper attribution, a reader has no barometer to judge the involvement of the source in the matter at hand, the source’s potential personal biases, what the source’s motivations or incentives may be in releasing such information and what qualifies the source to comment with authority on the topic.
Douglas Waller’s “Outing Secret Jails,” ran recently in Time Magazine, and is saturated with improperly attributed sources. Anonymous informants outnumber properly attributed sources three-to-one. The piece contains sensitive information that the government seems, from the story’s perspective, to be deliberately hiding from the public; anonymous sources are almost unavoidable in obtaining information on the matter. However, the high-profile nature of the piece and the manner in which the sources are delivered to the reader does not abide by the guidelines set by the Times. Throughout the piece, quotations are attributed vaguely at best. Waller gives his sources the shields of, “a senior U.S. intelligence official,” “a senior Administration source” and “counterterrorism sources.” The ambiguous aliases granted to these informants give the reader no way of considering the validity of their claims. For example, Waller’s “counterterrorism sources” have “confirmed to Time that the CIA has had covert detention centers in Thailand and Guantanamo BayâÂ?¦and that the agency continues to run similar facilities in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe.” In reality, these sources could be anyone from the head of operations at the CIA to a blogger researching terrorism to an intern at x. Waller also allows “a senior Administration source” to speculate on the positions that the national security advisor, secretary of state and even Vice President Dick Cheney hold on this sensitive issue. There is no indication of the motive this person has in leaking this information or the credentials that allow them to be qualified to comment on the matter. In the case of this article, the writer should have better negotiated with the sources to give more background on their credentials and the editors should have insisted that the writer find at least some attributable source to verify the leak.
Although occasionally confidentiality must be granted to sources who, by leaking information to the press, could put themselves or their positions in jeopardy, but the nonchalance with which anonymity is granted today has led to a lapse in the media’s credibility. Not only does the Times insist that the sources have a “compelling” reason to remain confidential, but it requires that its paper tries to convey to readers the reason for which the source was granted anonymity. For example, an article following these guidelines might state, “said a man who witnessed the hate crime and wished not to be identified for fear that he might be the target of retaliatory attacks.” If measures less strict than the Times requires were implemented, sources could use the shield of anonymity to project slander, propagandize or even provoke a violent or harmful retaliation.
In a recent New York Times story, “Looting by Immigrants Embroils Paris Suburbs,” writer Craig Smith struggles with reporting on both sides of social unrest. Smith does an excellent job of providing characteristic portrayals of the sources, giving the reader clues about their positions and roles in the conflict. For example, he refers to, “a bearded man in a white cap and North African Robe.” Another source is described as “a French Algerian man Chanel sunglasses.” In a conflict that stemmed from nationality and ethnicity based relations, the background and social class of this man suggested by the description helps the reader enormously. Although some of the sources’ claims might seem outlandish, they do not directly commend the violence or aggravate additional unrest. The quotations simply give the reader insight into the emotions and arguments of those involved.
There is a very thin line one must walk when granting anonymity to informants. In an age of rapidly advancing communication technology, it is becoming easier to collect and verify information. Although the right to the responsible use of anonymous sources should be reserved and promoted by the publication, the need for Codes of Ethics to develop and enforce strict guidelines to protect the integrity and credibility of the paper and respect the needs and rights of the reader to full access to knowledge.
Works Cited:
Smith, Craig. “Rioting by Immigrants Embroils Paris Suburbs.” New York Times. 11/5/05. A1
Waller, Douglas. “Outing Secret Jails.” Time Magazine. Published online, 11/6/05. Accessed at: www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1126713,00.html
LA Times Code of Ethics. Accessed on blackboard.
