| Sumario: | The article focuses on anonymous sources in journalism. That is mostly but not unequivocally good. Anonymous sources can generate some important stories. The problem is that they also make a lot of readers, viewers and listeners suspicious. Journalists recoil at trying to appease their critics. But this is different. A major contributor to the momentum in favor of naming sources is Newsweek's shift in policy after the magazine felt obliged to retract a brief item about a Quran being put in a toilet. Before Newsweek, it was the embarrassment of CBS caused by an unidentified source who supplied phony documents about U.S. President George W. Bush's National Guard stint during the Vietnam War. According to Richard M. Smith, chairman and editor in chief, that historically, unnamed sources have helped to break or advance stories of great national importance, but overuse can lead to distrust among readers and carelessness among journalists. Smith laid out some ethical guidelines that other media would be smart to adopt. In fact, Newsweek had shown its Quran brief to a senior Defense Department official who challenged one assertion but said nothing about the toilet. Using anonymous sources, with its enterprising stealth and sleuthing about, is part of the thrill and romance of journalism.
|
|---|