Anonymous sources are people being interviewed for a piece, but don't want to be named for a variety of reasons. It could be for their own protection, because they could lose their job, etc. If it weren't for anonymous sources some stories would be left untold, they help tell the truth and seek justice, but it could help to spread lies and it makes the stories more unreliable. Journalists should be careful every time they decided to use an anonymous source.
Laws on Anonymous Sources
Reporters have the right under the First Amendment to not reveal their sources, this is the reporter's privilege. During Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not give reporters the right to refuse to reveal their sources in a story and the person revealed can sue for damages. Dissenters said that reporters should only have to reveal their sources if the government has a compelling reason to do so. Justice Stewart said: the government has to show the that there is "probable cause" that the reporter possesses information that is relevant to a specific violation of the law, there is no alternative means for obtaining the information being sought, and there is a "compelling and overriding" interest by the state of the information in question. This flowed into Shield Laws which gives more freedom to journalists for sources than the First Amendment. 49 states and Washington D.C. have these laws, but there are limits. In some states a reporter cannot disclose confidential information through anonymous sources.
Why Anonymity Should be Granted:
The Associated Press says that anonymity should be allowed when the material is information and not an opinion or speculation and is vital to the piece, the information isn't available except under the under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source, and the source is reliable and in a position to have direct knowledge of the information. The editor must always know the source so as to back up the fact there is a reputable source, the story must be important to include anonymous sources, anonymity should always be the last resort (if you don't need it, don't use it), and the reasoning behind the anonymity must be revealed in the story this also shows that they are reputable.
Jimmy's World:
Janet Cooke wrote a piece called "Jimmy's World" for The Washington Post, the story was about an 8 year old boy who was addicted to heroin. Cooke used anonymous sources for her piece, sources her editors didn't even know about. The piece essentially went viral and was reposting around the world. Cops went mad trying to find out who Jimmy was in order to find his parents to hold them responsible for his addiction, but Cooke would not reveal her sources. Jimmy was never found, and a year later Cooke was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for the piece. Cooke won and was the first African American woman to win a Pulitzer Prize in journalism; however, the celebration ended pretty early when her previous employer at the paper BLADE noticed that her bio for Pulitzer Prize winners didn't add up to her resume for them. She lied about her schooling, and more and they went to the Pulitzer committee. Cooke soon after confessed that the entire story was made up. Cooke's career was ruined.
Works Cited:
https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/anonymous-sources
https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Watergate-case-shows-value-of-anonymous-sources-2666542.php
https://sophia.smith.edu/fys169-f19/2019/11/22/janet-cookes-jimmys-world-and-the-fear-of-lying-media/
No comments:
Post a Comment