Can journalists reveal anonymous sources?
Here’s the problem: Journalists can be compelled by a court to reveal a source’s identity because there is no national shield law granting them an exemption from testifying. If they refuse, they can face prison time or fines.
Why journalists should have the right not to disclose the sources of their information other than to their editors?
Journalists argue that without means to protect their confidential sources, their ability, for example, to lay bare corruption of public officials would be seriously impaired. So strong is the need to protect their sources, that many journalists are bound by professional codes of ethics from revealing them.
Can a journalist reveal their source?
The idea behind reporter’s privilege is that journalists have a limited First Amendment right not to be forced to reveal information or confidential news sources in court. Journalists rely on confidential sources to write stories that deal with matters of legitimate public importance.
Should a journalist reveal their source?
Why confidentiality is important in journalism?
Confidential sources provide information to journalists or other writers with the agreement that their identities will not be revealed in the reporting of the details that they have provided.
Should journalist always protect confidential sources?
Using terms such as “confidential” sources probably doesn’t build much confidence, but the word “anonymous” or “anonymity” can hurt your credibility, and isn’t accurate from your standpoint. So consider avoiding those terms. Journalists using unnamed sources usually know the sources well.
What are ethical issues regarding journalists using anonymous sources?
First, it damages the credibility of the promise-breaker and the media outlet he or she works for. Others with important information may decline to provide information off or even on the record if the reporter is not trustworthy.
Are anonymous sources good or bad for journalism?
According to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), “Anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to unlocking a big story, throwing back the curtain on corruption, fulfilling the journalistic missions of watchdog on the government and informant to citizens. But sometimes, anonymous sources are the road to the ethical swamp.”
Is anonymity a double-edged sword for journalists?
There was a consensus that accurate, fair and reliable reporting was being undermined and that reader trust was at stake in the fledgling democracy steeped in political conflict. Their ethical instincts rated a gold star. Media professionals everywhere in the world grapple with the thorny issue of anonymity. It can be a double-edged sword.
Do editors need to know the identity of anonymous sources?
“At least one editor must know the specific identity of any anonymous source before publication.” The tighter standards appear to be working. In July, Phil Corbett, the Times’ associate managing editor for standards, reported a “measurable drop,” around 30 percent, in anonymous sourcing. Here are some resources that can help.
Should you grant confidentiality to sources who approach you?
You should be more willing to grant confidentiality to a source you approach but is reluctant to talk than to a source who approaches you with information he hopes you’ll publish. When you initiate the conversation, you are trying to persuade the source to help you with your story.