Under Condition of Anonymity
What a ridiculous arrangement this is. And its widespread use is even more laughable. Those accepting this questionable practice would like you to ignore the obvious drawbacks. Like how useful is information provided by someone without the stones to disclose their identity? Or the ‘journalistic’ sin of avoiding the scrutiny of full disclosure? All this practice does is raise more questions for the skeptical and attempt to place value on gossip. Something all too common in media reports these days.
Media organizations lament the rise of citizen journalism and the fall of their business model. As more and more newspapers and other mainstream media outlets lose advertising dollars to support their enterprise criticism is misplaced. Many blame the internet and free resources rather than to perform an introspective analysis focusing on lack of integrity.
So how common is the practice of using anonymous sources? A Goole search of the phrase ‘condition of anonymity’ delivers a results count of twelve and a half million. In Google news, the phrase ‘they spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information’ returns over five thousand hits.
Never mind the results available in these searches is tiny compared to the stated total (who could review milions of results?). The point is the practice as well as ‘media’ willingness to use it is more telling than any report including it. Citizen journalism may be suspect but that is a given. The role of the ‘fourth estate’ was to provide a source of objective information to the public. The failure to meet that standard is nothing new. There are many accounts demonstrating that fact throughout history.
So what’s the real reason mainstream media is failing? It’s obvious. They are no longer believable. At least citizen journalism, e.g., the blogosphere, provides passionate accounts on virtually any topic to promote discussion and foster further investigation.
Something lost on those allowing the demise of journalism in traditional sources.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
March 1st, 2010 at 12:58 am
Hear, Hear! and they’re no longer believable because they lie by ommission regularly.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:45 am
Although anonymous sources are also used for intentional leaks and perhaps not as sinister as other instances of the practice…. it is still deceptive and equally dishonest. Public officials have successfully turned the MSM into just another political tool with a willing co-conspirator. And they wonder why business is down.