“Government officials believe that Trump’s response to COVID was an embarrassment to the Trump administration” Many questions come to mind when reading this quote. Why did they hide their identity? Would saying this make the official lose their job? Or are they just a small minority in government that disagrees with the Trump administration? Are these high-level officials or low-level politicians? We would never know since the source was kept anonymous.
What is an Anonymous Source? What are the Pros? What are the Cons?
An anonymous source is a person being interviewed for a newspaper or other piece but does not want their name given out. There are a lot of pros and reasons why someone would want to be anonymous and why journalists use anonymous sources. The first reason is that some stories would have never been told if they could not be anonymous. Normally when anonymous sources are used to protect someone and if there is a lot at stake for that person then remaining anonymous will protect them and allow the story to be told. Using anonymous sources helps tell the truth of the story and to seek justice. If someone is the victim of abuse then to remain anonymous would be needed to seek justice and protect that person. Adding on, anonymous sources can be used to seek justice in society. An anonymous source may want to shine a light on corruption in society, government, or the workplace. There are cons to using anonymous sources such as anonymous sources can spread lies and make the story less credible. The cons outweigh the pros from time to time with using anonymous sources because it can cause legal issues if the information is a lie or not credible.
Laws for Anonymous Sources
For many years, reporters and journalists have been protected by the Reporter’s Privilege. The Reporter’s Privilege made it so reporters have the right under the First Amendment to not have to reveal their sources. However, in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) the supreme court ruled that the First Amendment does not give reporters the right to refuse to reveal their sources and that the person revealed can sue for damages. This caused many issues with journalists because that made it so if a reporter breaks their promise of anonymity, you may be sued or if you refuse to reveal, you can face jail time. Dissenters on the case stated that reporters should only have to reveal sources if the government has a compelling interest. Justice Stewart in his dissent wrote an outline and three reasons for when reporters should be forced to reveal their sources. He stated, “1. The government must show that there is probable cause that the reporter possesses information that is relevant to a specific violation of the law. 2. There are no alternative means for obtaining the information being sought. 3. There is a “compelling and overriding” interest by the state in the information in question.” These rules made the outline for what we have today called Shield Laws. Shield Laws back up the Reporter’s Privilege and enforced what Justice Stewart wrote in his dissent. 49 states have Shield Laws today, including DC. Even though the Shield Laws protect reporters, there are limits. For example, in some states, a reporter cannot disclose confidential information. These laws all together made it clear that reporters have the freedoms to use anonymous sources but they created an outline for when to use anonymous sources.
Journalist Rules for When to Use Anonymous Sources
Today journalists use four main rules for when to use anonymous sources. The first one is that an editor must also know the source. An editor must know the source as well to create almost a filter so that lies are not spread. For example, Janet Cooke wrote an article that was extremely popular that described the story of an 8-year-old boy who was addicted to drugs. Janet Cooke went on to even win a Pulitzer Prize. However, her Pulitzer Prize was soon taken away when it was found out that she lied about the whole thing and made the kid up. If an editor was to check before she published the articles it would have prevented her from losing her job and ruining the reputation of the newspaper. The second rule is that the story must be important, which is a given. To use an anonymous source the story must be so interesting and important that the source has to be anonymous. The third rule is that anonymity should be a last resort. Using an anonymous source can cause a lot of distrust and makes the source less credible, using other sources is a better option. For example, using another person is more credible and it puts the story on the record. Another better source is using documents. Documents can have more in-depth information and more details but it is more interesting to hear from another person and often why journalists skip over using documents. If all else fails, then that is when to use an anonymous source. Using an anonymous source is easier and cheaper but it loses credibility. The last rule for using anonymous sources is that when using an anonymous source, the reason for anonymity must be explained in the story. Adding context to why that person was kept anonymous creates more credibility and when you use an anonymous source you are losing the source so adding why creates more validity.
No comments:
Post a Comment