Anonymous sources, journalism

Journalism is about telling the unbiased truth and holding those in power accountable for their actions. Many times, this is easy enough because you can reach out to any official to get comments. 

But what about when the source does not want to be identified? That gets tricky because anonymous sources can be valuable or detrimental to a publication. The Society of Professional Journalists has some basic guidelines for dealing with anonymous sources:

1. When at all possible, identify a source by name and title.
2. Question the reasoning behind a source wanting anonymity. 
3. Clarify if there are any strings attached to any information revealed.
4. Keep all promises. 

The commonality of using anonymous sources in the media has waxed and waned over time with there currently being more hesitancy. This is mainly because readers might lose trust in the organization if they are too prominent. 

    

The most widely-acclaimed and successful use of an anonymous source was the Watergate scandal. 

    

In 1972, the Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein worked with a source dubbed as "Deep Throat" to break the story of the Nixon Administration's role in the Watergate complex break-in. 

    

"Deep Throat" was self-identified as the then-assistant director of the FBI Mark Felt. This came after he denied being "Deep Throat" multiple times and the reporters not revealing his name for over 30 years. 

    

In this situation, Felt would only confirm or deny information and would meet Woodward and Bernstein in a parking garage in the middle of the night to keep his identity secret.

    

While the Watergate scandal's use of anonymous sources was a success, there are instances where anonymous sources can be harmful. This was the case when it came to the O.J Simpson murder trial. 

The Simpson case had captured the attention of the whole nation as there were cameras in the courtroom to watch the proceedings. The media's influence is exemplified by over 2,000 reporters covering the case and 80 miles of cables used that led to over 142 million viewers across the United States watching the final verdict be announced. 

So it makes sense that news organizations would want to get the best scoop, and that led the local station KNBC to report that blood and DNA on a sock found matched the late Nicole Simpson's. 

How did they come across that information? You guessed it. An anonymous source. 

    

With the high media attention, it was obvious that this could influence the final decision, and that determination led the presiding judge, Lance Ito, to close the courtroom from cameras. KNBC later admitted the information could have been false. 

In both of those situations, the reporters got away with having anonymous sources, but others have dealt with pressure and backlash to reveal a source's identity. 

Just ask Judith Miller.

During the United States's war on terror in the early 2000's, the U.S. falsely claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an OpEd in the New York Times saying that he found nothing of the sort while on the ground. 

Shortly thereafter, his wife, Valeria Plame, was revealed as a CIA agent by writer Robert Novack. Many believe the leak was the White House's doing because they believed Plame had something to with Wilson being sent to the country. 

The Bush administration held a grand jury investigation into the matter. Miller was involved because it was believed (and was true) that she met then-Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby in the days around the release of Novack's article and had more information.

Miller refused to discuss any sources or possible meetings with sources by declaring reporters' privilege, but that was not upheld. She was held in jail for 85 days for not revealing the information. She only left after Libby told her by phone that it was OK to reveal their meetings and information discussed to the grand jury. 

This shows just how tricky the issue of anonymous sources can be, but it has led to some states to implement shield laws to provide total or partial protection of journalists and their sources in court, with some variations and exceptions between states. 

And so this leads to the discussion of what constitutes an anonymous source? Someone whose name and specific title is not revealed. So, it is important to touch on the different levels of attribution journalists use. 

On the record means that a reporter is allowed to use any information or direct quotes from a source while also identifying the source by both name and title. 

On background or also known as not for attribution means that reporter can use a source's information and direct quotes, but cannot identify them by name. Instead, a general title is usually used such as "a source in the mayor's office..." 

On deep background means that the reporter can use the information from the source, but cannot quote them or identify them in any way. This could be used by saying "a knowledgeable source described..."

Off the record means that reporter cannot use any information from a source and cannot identify them, but the information obtained can be used to find other sources or information. This often can get confused by unknowledgeable people for on background. 

It is important to take all of this into account when thinking about anonymous sources. When possible, journalists should not use anonymous sources because it can hurt the news' credibility, but there are times when exceptions are necessary to fulfill a journalists main responsibilities.