PressEthic

According to Harry Jaffe’s article in The Washingtonian, editors met last week to discuss, among other things, the use of anonymous sources. Here’s a taste of what they came up with:

“I don’t think anything was decided,” [Andy] Alexander reports. “When it comes to sourcing, I think we need to make changes on the margins.”

Well, not much “was decided,” but at least they are trying. Here is an explanation of “on the margins” from Jaffe’s article:

There is, [Walter] Pincus notes, a difference between sources used for investigative stories and unnamed sources in daily political coverage. “When it reaches over into opinion,” he says, “there is an issue.”

The issue is that politicians and bureaucrats can smear an enemy or place their spin on a story without leaving fingerprints or taking responsibility. This is what Andy Alexander calls sourcing “on the margins.”

“Our rule at Cox is no pejorative unnamed sources,” he says.

Well, it’s a start.

Certainly anonymous sources are essential in some situations, but granting anonymity is not something a reporter should do unless it is absolutely necessary. The debate over this issue has been kicked into overdrive, and I only hope it will continue. Though the issue is buried in shades of gray, perhaps some serious discussion will give reporters the gumption to “just say no” to anonymous sources when it is not necessary to use them.