Here is some insight into the hot topic of anonymous sources by Eric Engberg. He argues that reporters should be extremely skeptical of anonymous sources, as they are rarely acting for the greater good of mankind.
anonymous sources are mostly not public spirited “deep throats†blowing the whistle on bad guys. It’s more likely they’re covering someone’s rear end or spitting out a self-serving party line that sounds more believable in the camouflage of anonymity.
This is by no means a ground breaking theory ---it is in fact pretty much common knowledge. The fact is that it took a high level indictment, and an equally high level ‘retirement’ for this fact to be driven home. The fall-out of the Plame leak case has set a new precedent for journalists.
Ordinary readers seem to distrust news based on anonymous sources, and the credibility of such stories (in most cases) drops substantially. These are grim facts and I can understand why veteran journalists are trying to come up with solutions to these problems. Engberg had some suggestions.
At the very least, every news organization should establish written rules delineating the circumstances under which an anonymous source can be used in a story. In the name of transparency, readers and viewers should be told what the rules are.
Regulating the use of anonymous sourcing is only the tip of the iceberg. There are a whole lot of issues, which will need to be addressed if journalism is to be regulated by written rules. I am skeptical about the concept of applying formal rules to regulate a field, which faces unique ethical issues all the time. Binding down journalists with these rules could hinder important stories.
Now if ABC had followed the rules they would never have exposed us to the wonderful world of fresh meat at Food Lion. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am really grateful to them.
The ideal situation would be if journalists could follow a code of ethics so that the field could self regulate, but given the current scenario, it seems that ship has sailed.
willemmarx @ November 17, 2005 - 6:34pm
On the subject of Eric Engberg, who is a very dry but cutting writer, an interesting piece he wrote provides a sharp delve into the distinction between bloggers and journalists.
His view on the topic succinctly states that:
The point is constructively argued, and relatively balanced given that he has a background in the "MSM."
»