When does policy go too far?

[Some Guy]

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.

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.

 

[forever_town]

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.