Every professional journalist who works for a professional media outlet or publication should know that doing their best to get as many identified sources as possible is one of the essential methods for keeping themselves and their publication reputable.
But what is your position as a reader if you have an article that all of its quoted sources are unidentified. Is that article or story worth publishing?
For this case, we have an example. An article published in September 19 issue of the Newsweek on page 8 titled “Planning for Pulloutâ€, which mainly tries to illustrate that there are some preliminary scenarios among the different US intelligence bodies for pulling out US troops in Iraq.
The article, written by Mark Hosenball, has four sources. One of them quoted directly and the other three are indirect. The problem starts when you see that all four sources of the article are anonymous as follows:
- Analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency have begun war-gaming scenarios for what might happen in Iraq if US force levels were cut back or eliminated, say counterterrorism and defense sources. The officials who asked not to be named because of the sensitive subject matter, declined to discuss …
- On a recent trip to the region, Sen. Pat Roberts …………….if forces were cut back or withdrawn, Says one official.
- A Defense official familiar with the issue (who also would not be identified because of the subject matter) tells Newsweek: “You would expect …....force levels.
- A spokesman for National Intelligence Director John Negroponte had no comment.
If all sources of an article are unidentified, how does the journalist tell news to readers? In this case if journalists want to raise a sensitive point like pullout of troops in Iraq, they should wait until a Subject Matter gets clearer and they can have more detailed information. Journalists should not deceive readers by giving them only preliminary information.
Even if the article’s angel is showing how officials do no respond or are not willing to give all the details, the writer should have written the articles in another form, not in this form leaving the reader with no clues. For example, he could have focused on a point that no official is ready to talk about a sensitive issue.
I am sure Newsweek knows this better than me, but as a reader who read Hosenball’s article, I did not even find enough information from its anonymous sources.
Ryan McConnell @ September 21, 2005 - 2:49pm
It's inarguable that writers should identify sources when they are able to; even the writer of the Newswseek piece you cited would likely agree. But what happens when a source refuses to identify herself? If you're the Newsweek editor and yourreporter insists that it's a choice between running this story with anonymous sources or not running it at all, what do you choose? As for me, I'd run the story; the fact that the US Dept. of Defense is actively exploring reducing troops in Iraq is newsworthy enough to waive the need to have the sources ID'd. If the facts in the story remain accurate, I still think it's in the public's interest for that information to be made available to all, identifiable sources or not. But I can definitely see your point.
»