Quote:
Originally posted by hoosier
In all, I think it is better that the media is now reducing the use of anonymous sources (USAToday says 75% less this year).
|
Two sides to this issue; and again, I haven't been a practicing journalist in a couple of years, so others (DeltAlum specifically) would be better-qualifed to speak on this issue.
Throughout my time as a reporter (as well as in J-school), we were almost discouraged from using anonymous sources, except in the most extreme of cases (rape victims, high-placed people whose jobs would be in jeopardy, etc.). Even then, most times my editor would have to clear the use of a nameless source. Now, I was just a run-of-the-mill reporter, so those with more experience (and better jobs) may have been given more leeway.
On the other side of this - there are some reporters and some stories where working without anonymous sources would be impossible. Some stories just cannot be broken without such sources, and the stories need to be written.
There's a balance to be sought, for sure. I just hope we don't get to a point where journalists can't use such sources.