A news article is shaped around its sources. Everything from the mundane to the scandalous is based on a reporter calling someone up, and asking for comments on a certain issue or event.
But there are always sources that do not wish to be on the record, and writing a news story can get a whole lot more complicated.
Some journalism ethicists believe, especially in the wake of trust-breaking scandals like the Jayson Blair debacle, that reporters should not even consider quoting a source anonymously unless there is a serious threat to their livelihood. But in a media industry that needs to compete with The Drudge Report, that is not a realistic goal. Or even desirable.
Allowing sources to be anonymous when answering questions about whether they like Dewick's cuisine or their thoughts on a senate resolution is unnecessary, and simply allows people to not take responsibility for their comments.
There are three types of anonymous sources:
One, the source that allows their words to be quoted, and then be attributed to "anonymous" and a brief description of their position of expertise.
Two, the source which does not allow their quotes to be used, but only wishes to provide anonymous overview and background, allowing the reporter to enter general details and attribute it to "anonymous."
Three, the source which does not want anything that they say published, and is only providing information for background purposes to help the reporter find other, quotable leads for the story. Think Bob Woodward's "Deep Throat" during the Watergate investigations.
The use of anonymous sources is prevalent in national newspapers. Nearly every major government-related story is attributed to "sources within the administration," or "a source in the campaign." The high-minded in the profession decry this as sloppy journalism, journalists propagating half-truths that are attributed to no one.
The Tufts Daily, due to the damage that can be done by publishing potentially unattributed falsehoods, has to hold itself to a fairly high standard. Few articles feature anonymous sources, but some do.
Players on the men's soccer team accusing the coach of malfeasance. A number of residential assistants venting about the director of the Office of Residential Life and Learning's (ORLL) management style. OneSource employees complaining about their working conditions.
All of these stories had similarities. In all three, the reporters found rare or no dissenting views. Any accusations or complaints from those wishing to remain anonymous that had dissent were cut from the articles. It was determined that the sources had a reasonable request in asking for anonymity - loss of employment, etc.
Before a source can begin talking off the record, he and the reporter must discuss how the quotes will be attributed. Are they deep background? Will they simply be attributed to "a source," or to "a high-level member of the administration close to the president." These issues must be worked out beforehand, because if they are not, it is the reporter's discretion on what is used or not.
The goal of the reporter is to make it as clear to the reader that the source is someone knowledgeable on the subject matter without giving away the identity.
I hate using anonymous sources, and when using them, I try to reduce their impact as much as possible in favor of sources who are willing to go on the record. In a school as small as Tufts, it gives a sense that those being quoted are escaping the responsibility for their accusations. But sometimes they are necessary.
In fact, journalist Seymour Hersh makes the claim that anonymous sources should not matter. If the reporter turns out to be right, then you recognize that reporter as a good user of knowledgeable and trustworthy sources.
Sadly, in the short two or three-year tenure that Daily reporters have, there is little time to gain that sort of notoriety. For the campus, here is a brief how-to on being quoted anonymously:
Request that your statement be "off the record" before you say it. If you say that it is off the record after you've said it, you are too late.
You and the reporter need to come to an agreement, allowing the reporter to see if he wishes to allow you to be off the record.
It has to be decided how the information should be attributed (a high-level administration source, or an administration source, or a Tufts employee, etc.).
All this has to happen before the interview, otherwise the reporter is ethically allowed to publish anything you said previously. Retroactive agreements can be reached, but the reporter is under no obligation to do so.
Being up front like this ensures honesty between reporters and sources. I encourage those with something to say to request to be off the record, but if you wish it to carry weight, it is not to your advantage. Last spring, two residential assistants went on the record with their complaints about the ORLL, and those two on-the-record quotes carried far more weight than the other half-dozen or more anonymous ones.
Anonymity is a useful tool for journalists, but it is one that has its limits. Journalism is, in the end, about the reader trusting those quoted, and shielding views behind anonymity will always make a reader pause a little before believing.
