1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Anonymity

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Johnny Dangerously, Mar 12, 2009.

  1. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    In a story, credibility is granted to an anonymous source. The editors are saying, we can't tell you who it is, but we know who it is and you can trust the information if you trust us. On a message board, the management doesn't vouch for you, you earn credibility over time by being consistent in the quality of the information you offer and how you treat others. I posted under my real name on the old board for a few months and stopped for several reasons. I do think it gets in the way of the discussion, especially if someone expects the rest of us to pay attention because of who is posting rather than what they actually say.
     
  2. HorseWhipped

    HorseWhipped Guest

    I guess many of us would like to post under our real names because we believe in free speech and open forums for opinion and debate.

    But there are a lot of vindictive bastards in newspaper management.
     
  3. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    It must get boring, being on the money every time.
     
  4. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    That's No. 1 with a Kevlar-(and 401K-)piercing bullet.
     
  5. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    I agree with every word Frank wrote, but I also know readers don't know who the unnamed source is, and that always leaves room for doubt. That, an editor once told me, is why you should not use such sources. If it's important enough to put out in the world, she said, someone should be willing to put their name to it.

    It's a discussion that engages me on several levels, especially as I reevaluate the trail of my September floating around the cut-and-paste world of the Internet and whether it's essentially had a negative effect upon my job search.
     

  6. And then there are the trolls and fucksticks who take pride in the shit they post behind the cloak of anonymity.
     
  7. Andy _ Kent

    Andy _ Kent Member

    Fortunately, I don't have that problem because nobody really cares who I am when I post. ;)
     
  8. I am NOT a fan of anonymous sources.
    Had a coworker use one - who he swore was dead on and close to a breaking, statewide situation. Editors believed the guy and based on "the source's" info we went with a major story - that was 100 percent not even close to correct.
    It was embarrassing.
     
  9. I Should Coco

    I Should Coco Well-Known Member

    Well-said, "Frank Ridgeway." I'm not a huge fan of anonymous sources, but I can think of several in-depth stories our paper has done over the years (for example, one on teen suicide) where withholding a name or using a pseudonym was necessary and helped produce a great story.

    The online world of story comments and message boards is a bit different. I think the general public knows not to accept those posts as gospel truth. I believe the online stuff is equal in value to those old "sound off" called-in comment features newspapers used to carry in the pre-Internet days.

    And on SportsJournalists.com, since we often discuss a situation that arises in one of our shops, the use of phony names obviously helps the discussion. Several of you know my real name and where I work, but I wouldn't want my boss to figure it out and track down my comments.

    Sincerely,
    "I Should Coco"
     
  10. lono

    lono Active Member

    The battle we always have to weigh, though, is this: Is it better to tell a story we know to be true and use anonymous sources or better not to tell the story at all?

    I lean heavily towards telling the story, but making sure it's ironclad.

    And, ultimately, if you're the editor, you better damn sure know who you can trust among your reporters.
     
  11. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Anonymous sources have their places.

    But if someone called you and wanted you to rip someone in print and made all kinds of smears and false accusations and then hung up, would you write it?

    That's how I feel about people anonymously attacking others in blogs and story chats and message boards.

    If you have the facts on your side, you don't need to get mean and vindictive.
     
  12. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    Speaking truth to power -- or, in a lesser sense, whatever we often engage in here driven by passion or mission a little more than ego, I hope -- often requires that someone, somehow, has your back. Whether it's an institution, like your newspaper's clout and reputation, or just more powerful allies.

    In lieu of that, there's anonymity. Which requires the sort of trust and credibility and track record of which Frank wrote if it's going to add rather than subtract from the discourse.

    A place like this could quickly degenerate into the aforementioned "dick-swinging" based on circulation size or celebrity or presumed bank account. I happen to like the fact that I can post stuff here unrelated to whether I'm working for a 20K daily or a weekly or a 500K metro, or even when I'm unemployed. :-\

    I like that everybody else can, too, because it keeps the debates more on topic and, I dunno, clean.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page