12-15-2009 SHOULD MEDIA NAME ANONYMOUS SOURCES WHEN INFO IS WRONG? The recent naming of Turner Gill as the new head football coach at the University of Kansas brings up the ugly journalism issue of using anonymous or unnamed sources for stories. Several sources provided the local media information that Stanford Coach Jim Harbaugh was going to take the job. In fact, some reported he was flying in to sign his contract. It never happened. As a friend noted, "The whole debacle of the media trying to get a scoop on the KU coaching story left a trail of half-eaten, thinly-sourced and altogether incorrect stories in its wake." The entire Harbaugh mess brings up an interesting journalistic question: "What is a journalist's obligation to an unnamed source who burns them?" One local reporter feels it is proper for journalists to divulge the anonymous source who provided the wrong information. "A reporter made a promise to a source to keep their name out of the paper or the airwaves on the premise that the information being given was accurate and correct," he noted, "but doesn't a violation on the source's part give the reporter license to get out of his end of the bargain?" Good point. "I think that otherwise, unnamed sources have no accountability for feeding the media bad information. If they never get outed, they continue to feed bad information that gets run." Of course, many journalists give the advice to simply avoid using any unnamed sources. However, unnamed sources have provided some of the greatest journalistic scoops in history (see Watergate). All journalists will likely agree that they should honor any off-the-record requests. But when bad information or outright lies by an anonymous source are given, should all bets be off? Drop me a line and weigh in on the topic ([email protected]). Thanks.
FEEDBACK "Nothing sucks more than getting a story wrong, especially when you are certain you are right.This weekend really sucked. "You don�t expose your source on a story. It is unprofessional and makes you as a journalist seem petty. In reality, anonymous sources should not be the basis of story.
UNPROFESSIONAL TO OUT SOURCE "I agree with the first feedback writer. It is unprofessional to say the least to out a source. The proper thing to do is try and get the annonymous sources information verified by something more concrete, whether it is a named source or something that actually points to the validity of the story."
JOURNALISM 2010.0 "In the digital, 24-hour news-cycle age - it's more important to get the story FIRST before getting the story RIGHT. Bet they don't teach that at any "J" school?! "Unnamed sources feed the frenzy and shrug off any notion that they'll be "called on the carpet." Verifying the facts is not in the playbook for non-traditional media. "And way more often than not it's the non-traditional media that are getting the younger eyeballs, listeners and readers. "If above-the-fold stories come up false or ridiculous - guys like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert clean up the mess with a late-night flogging and timely laughtrack. Call it Journalism 2010.0."
FLIMSY SOURCES "...some "journalists" would never want to name their anonymous sources because they'd be embarrassed if people realized how flimsy they are. My bias needs no reference, but I'm thinking entirely of certain local radio and TV reporters."
NEVER OUT A SOURCE "Rule No. 1: you never out a source, period. Any reporter/blogger/etc who goes with a story based on one source deserves to look like a fool. Revealing the source who made you look foolish only compounds things by making you look like the sort of asshole that no credible source would ever trust in the future."
ONLY IF INTENTIONAL The only time it's justified to out a source is if he or she intentionally provides wrong information. But I think in most cases when a source is wrong, it's the reporter's wishful thinking and visions of glory that transformed unverified info into "exclusives" and "scoops."
Copyright 2009 Bottom Line Communications. BLC is a Media News Web site that analyzes media and marketing issues. Please give credit or link to http://www.bottomlinecom.com when using any materials. Click on the FEEDBACK tab to send any media tips/comments/thoughts/ to us. We honor all off-the-record requests and will correct/clarify any information found not to be 100% accurate.
