Anonymous sources
Anybody who reads or watches any amount of news has heard such phrases as "sources close to the investigation" and "unnamed governmental sources." Having worked in journalism long enough to know that getting information can be a challenge that occasionally leads to dead ends, I know that sometimes such anonymous sources work. In nearly all cases, though, they simply make the news agency appear less credible.On at least four different news broadcasts (on four different networks) last night, it was reported that investigators working on the Laci Peterson murder case had found pliers with Laci's hair attached on her husband's boat. The Modesto Bee mentioned it today, also citing anonymous sources, and even the New York Post has picked up on it, saying simply that "it was reported yesterday," and citing NBC News as the source.
I believe there are times when stories that use anonymous sources are more accurate than they would otherwise be. When anonymous sources are used by reporters, the editors often -- and should -- look more closely at the story and question the reporter. But there's no way to prove that, and from all other appearances, the story looks weak and suspicious. That's why the use of anonymous sources is generally considered a Bad Idea.
This Scott Peterson/pliers incident is an example of an anonymous source taking advantage of eager reporters and editors. That source obviously talked to several news organizations, knowing this latest tantalizing bit would be snatched up by people who just can't get enough of the Laci Peterson story. I think the news organizations were lazy and let this source take advantage and make a mockery of them.
Posted by Layla at 9:04 AM, May 13, 2003
— Comments —