When does policy go too far?

I understand what WTD is saying, though, which is why my policy is to not HAVE a policy on such things -- you figure out the level of trust you have with each writer and then you make calls when necessary on a case-by-case basis.

 

word gets around. if you set a policy like this, people will find out quickly, trust me. people talk.

yeah, common sense is an amazing thing

and a rare thing

 

That would be cool. But I don't have the authority to set policy at my place.

Even in the absence of a company policy, I think as a matter of personal policy, it's probably best to avoid running with stories based solely on a single anonymous source.

I'd imagine most successful reporters follow such a policy on their own, maybe even without thinking about it. In many ways, it's just basic reporting. I doubt many of us are running with every not-for-attribution comment we hear from every lackey on our various beats.

If they are high enough up the chain of command -- a GM talking about a trade, for instance -- you go with it. If they aren't -- if it's the assistant trainer or something -- you try to get someone to corroborate it.

Otherwise, you're going to get burned, sooner or later.

 

Our policy is no unnamed sources. Ever. We can't even mention a report in another paper if that paper used unnamed sources.

This month, every other paper in our state had a story about Glorious State U. either citing unnamed sources or citing the papers that were citing unnamed sources. We weren't able to touch it.

 

I want to party with your paper.

 

How does Steelers head coach Russ Grimm feel about this issue?

 

That's an admirable policy, so long as your paper is comfortable with missing stories.

 

Totally worth it.

An unnamed source story is your paper putting it's credibility on the line.

Your credibility should be like your wedding ring: Being really, really sure the hand will hold up isn't a good reason to put it in the pot.

 

I agree, mostly. Just saying it's a trade-off ... If you're never, ever allowed to use unnamed sources, there's a lot of business that isn't going to get done. Nixon might still be President!

So, I'm not prepared to say "never" (unless it's your paper's policy, in which case, there is no choice). I am prepared to say tread very, very, very, very, very, very carefully.

 

There are times when policy is helpful. There are also times when policy is too much of a leash.

I think in this case, the DMN erred too much on the side of caution. That's not to say that it's always a mistake to err on the side of caution. What if Stars fans caught wind of the rumors and the backlash forced the Stars into denial mode and "persuaded" the Stars to change their mind?

The best policy is to take everything on a case by case basis. In this case, the DMN might have been better off running with what they had. I don't know the full story, however. To the public, it makes the DMN look bad because they got beaten to a story that we found out later should have been theirs.