The George W. Bush administration is a curve ball for the American media. Critics view journalists as either too liberal in attacking its policies or too complacent in the face of government PR speak, making political reporting trickier than it already was.
In that vein, anonymous sources have veritably flooded articles, quoting “senior officials†who will speak out. The practice should be treated with trepidation, just ask USA Today , yet is rampant in today’s news.
It is important to protect sources, especially since many are putting their jobs on the line by talking. Maybe the Texas lawyer who was just fired for commenting on Karl Rove needed such considerations.
Then again, maybe the wrath of Bush and Co. simply knows no bounds.
Even with established policies for publications’ use of anonymous sourcing, it is still criticized and, as the Jack Kelley fiasco illustrates, sometimes for good reason. Kelley is certainly an extreme case; more often than not the trouble comes from deciding when and when not to use them. Anonymous sources can undoubtedly be valuable (a la the classic example, Deep Throat). But journalists must always be cognizant of their power as all-but-imaginary human beings.
Once that's considered, of course, journalists have to worry about what they're saying.
The Washington Post’s own Howard Kurtz spoke up when one of those elusive “senior White House officials†wrongly stated in The Post that Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco had not yet issued a state of emergency during Hurricane Katrina. (For more of this story and links, see Bill Romenesko .)
Obviously, as Kurtz notes, fact-checking would have solved this problem. The fact that the source wasn’t named should’ve been a second red flag for editors; they should have been absolutely positive the source’s comments were ready to publish.
With all the contradictions and muddled information coming out of the White House mouthpieces that are willing to have their names printed, the ones who aren’t so eager deserve serious thought. They’re most likely not talking about clean-cut issues, and the more careless journalists are with their words, the less credibility they’ll find themselves having.
These nameless voices should have such an impact because of their rarity. They shouldn’t be crutches for journalists who might have to make a few more phone calls to find that person who will go on the record.
In today’s political arena, it’s hard enough to make sense of what those people are saying anyway.
James Walker @ September 12, 2005 - 4:19pm
I think you make a very good point. I find that articles containing anonymous sources do themselves more harm than good. An anonymous source arouses suspicion, casting doubt over the entire article.
This article at The Guardian , tracks the history of anonymous sourcing, since its rise to the fore with Deep Throat and the Watergate affair. It concludes that today anonymous sourcing is useless, not so much because of the now dodgy credibility of the practice, but because of the media management techniques used by George W. Bush and his cronies. This author argues, that the techniques used to manipulate information by the current administration are far more nefarious. He claims that sources both named and unamed, have attempted to point out the travesities conducted by the administration. However Bush, unlike Nixon, continues to reside in office.
Going forward anonymous sources must be seen as an absolute last resort for journalists and editors. This article at the Wall Street Journal how several newspapers are attempting to limit this technique and set rules for its use. However I feel that the damage is already done. No longer does an anonymous source give weight to the revelation of a scandal, but instead jeopardises its authenticity.
»