This past week’s readings bring up debatable and ethical concerns regarding the use of anonymous sources, as well as how sources should be protected and whether or not reporters should have a certain privilege when writing these kinds of stories. When the media often report on highly publicized governmental and criminal events, reputations and national security are things that are often at stake.
Washington Post national security writer Walter Pincus explains how he made his decisions regarding the Valerie Plame case and how other general guidelines should be used when using confidential sources in “Anonymous sources: their use in a time of prosecutorial interest.” When an administration official was talking to Pincus confidentially about a matter involving Iraqi nuclear activities, he told him about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored trip to Niger in 2002, which was set up as a “boondoggle” by Wilson’s wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.
With information from a confidential source, Pincus had a dilemma. He disclosed the information, but not the source, after Valerie Plame had been named by Robert Novak, who was under criminal investigation. Under certain circumstances, a government official’s disclosure of identity could be a violation of federal law. Receiving a subpoena in order to find out the identity of his source, Pincus refused. He believed that the identity should be withheld until he agreed to reveal himself publicly. With such vital information, Pincus behaved in a way that would abide by the ethical principles of journalism, safeguarding national security and credibility within the media. Pincus brings up an interesting perspective on reporter’s privilege in that he views it as something that is shared by the source and the reporter. Nevertheless, it is extremely risky for a reporter to pledge anonymity and for newspapers to publish information from anonymous sources, as information eventually lacks credibility and readers ultimately don’t know what to believe to be true. As seen in the movie “All the President’s Men,” the use of anonymity harms the media’s profession and diminishes the value of confidentiality given to the people who risk their jobs and reputation for what they believe is the moral thing to do.
One Poynter article by Ryan Pitts asks for the opinions of readers on confidential sources and reveals that “a significant number of readers say the media would be better off not using them, even if that means waiting longer for an important story.” One reader asserts that if a source is willing to give information, then they should be willing to be named, as it is far too easy “to hide behind the cloak of anonymity.”
A lot of times, it is understandable why a newspaper would choose to publish confidential information on a governmental or scandalous story, especially in the profitable business of being the first to know. Many times throughout history, the media have acted as a watchdog and a form of check and balance on the government through the knowledge learned through confidential sources. If the information can be confirmed, then they have succeeded in producing social change. If not, then their reputation, as well as the ones of the subjects of the stories, is tarnished indefinitely. Unfortunately, in today’s age of fast-paced technology and the rush of deadline, thorough reporting and fact checking is not as effective as it should be or once was. The only time information should be published from a confidential source is if the information is absolutely vital to the public interest or prevents harm, if the source is in a position to make the claims and to supply the information, and if there is no other way to obtain the information.
While the American public believes the media would be better without confidential sources, Rachel Smolkin’s article reveals that most agree that reporters should be allowed to keep a source confidential. Ironically, Americans endorse the watchdog role of the media in their role in acting within our democratic government. The use of anonymous sources, incidentally, is a journalistic tool that falls in to a very gray area. While they can be useful, they should be used sparingly and vigilantly, as no one can agree on the harms and benefits that come along the way.
Local Paper Description – The Miami Herald
While the newspaper has a large percentage of non-white newsroom staff, the percentage has gone down since previous years. In 2005 the percentage was 43 percent, and in 2004 it was 63 percent. Ironically, the circulation areas have a non-white population of about 70 percent, while the county’s non-white population is about 80 percent, which clearly does not reflect the actual diversity in the newsroom.
