Watergate made the use of anonymous sources a romantic part of investigative journalism. I am convinced that there are certain stories that can’t be told without the use of “deep background.” To forgo the benefits of getting an important story out there simply because of the risks involved in anonymity would be a disservice to the public. The readings this week discuss some of the problems with Watergate’s journalistic legacy.
In “Readers: Anonymous Sources Affect Media Credibility,” Ryan Pitts details a media survey in which one-quarter of editors said they banned the use of anonymous sources entirely. One in five readers agree that sources should not be used unless they are named. While the majority of readers still see the critical role that anonymous sources play, 44 percent said anonymity makes a story less believable.
I agree with Pitts in that the reason for this distrust of anonymous sources has a lot to do with the fact that the sources themselves have become the news. Reporters got hungry, stopped corroborating, and sources started to lie.
But banning anonymous sources altogether isn’t the solution, as evident in Ben Bradlee’s failed experiment detailed in “When the Post Banned Anonymous Sources.” Bradlee’s ban lasted two days. Other papers printed important stories and the Post could not compete. What would have happened if the ban continued? The Watergate story would have been a far less important story in the eyes of the American public.
Whistleblowers and those in high government positions who leak information to the press could risk losing their jobs without anonymity. The difference between then and now is the race for the scoop. Reporters don’t think they have the time to verify. I think the lessons of recent anonymous source debacles are clear. If one unnamed source said a Guantanamo guard threw a Quran in the toilet, make sure someone else said it too.
Washington Post national security reporter Walter Pincus writes of the importance in protecting an anonymous source one they’ve been granted anonymity. Protecting confidential sources is what enables him to write a large portion of his intelligence and national security stories.
He gives some excellent guidelines on when to publish information provided by an anonymous source. In addition to verifying and closely examining information given by an anonymous source, the material itself should be highly newsworthy. Just because something is a secret doesn’t mean it needs to be published.
