Two cheers for anonymous sources

December 15, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Yes, anonymous quotes should be used sparingly. But in my latest for the Guardian, I argue that they are just like anything else in the journalist’s toolbox — a help to readers when used properly, a bane when abused.

3 Responses to “Two cheers for anonymous sources”

  1. LFNeilson says:

    It’s a tough issue, but I believe that granting anonymity to sources can bring out information that might not otherwise be revealed. If identifying the source would cost that employee his or her job, then I would go along with screening the identity. Once they’re fired, you probably can’t go back.

  2. Art Kane says:

    All well and good, but hardly fair, for Dan Gillmor, twittering from the cocoon of the non-profit universe, to question the courage of belabored staff reporters unwilling to go on record criticizing their real-world bosses while the industry crashes around them. Having once been among them, he ought to be a tad more tolerant of the human frailty of his former fellow wage-slaves.

    I’m a bit surprised that you didn’t even allude to the mitigating factor of corroberation. Sometimes a little (or a lot) more digging can produce same (pace deadlines). Absent, however, at least one other credible on-the-record source to echo the allegation, I wouldn’t use it; but that seems to me an editor’s decision, not a reporter’s.

  3. Art Kane says:

    At the risk of wearing out my welcome, I’ll chime in just once more with this quote from an article about Goldman Sachs I’ve just read in today’s New York Times:

    “Interviews with [emphasis mine] current and former Goldman partners paint a portrait of a bank driven by hard-charging traders like Mr. Blankfein, who wager vast sums in world markets in hopes of quick profits. Discreet bankers who give advice to corporate clients and help them raise capital — once a major source of earnings for Goldman — have been eclipsed, .”[emphasis again mine].

    The article goes on in this vein for two web pages without actually naming a single one of the sources (except one who [irony mine]).

    My point being that if you have 20 credible people making essentially the same allegation, albeit anonymously, that, it seems to me, is adequate corroboration.

WordPress Theme Design