Anonymous sources are often utilized by reporters who are investigating very serious stories, so I was a little surprised when I discovered that I could not disclose the names of Starbucks employees in my story about Starbucks’ new drink size.
If revealing a source’s identity can impact the safety or employment status of said source, then in some cases their name will be kept confidential. If this is the case, reporters are expected to go to great lengths to confirm the source’s honesty, reliability and accuracy.
“Ordinarily, information from anonymous sources is weak because readers have no way of gauging the credibility or authority of the source,” Stephen J. Berry wrote in his book “Watchdog Journalism.”
He said if anonymous sources are used, the reporter is basically asking the reader to trust their judgment.
For this reason, experienced journalists who have a reputation for objective, accurate and quality reporting are often the ones who have the credibility to use anonymous sources. They do it when they have to.
After a USA Today reporter was forced to resign due to misuse and abuse of anonymous sources, USA Today founder Al Neuharth said anonymous sources are “the root of all evil in journalism.”
He cited many examples in which reputable papers, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, were embarrassed by reporters making up information and covering up with the use of anonymous sources. Neuharth suggested that anonymous sources be banned from journalism entirely.
The New York Times editor Clark Hoyt said in a 2009 op-ed that although The New York Times has a strict policy regarding anonymous sources, they often do not uphold the rules. For example, a company policy says that anonymity will not be allowed when the source’s statement is a personal or partisan attack. But, a Yankees official remained anonymous when its insulting comment made about Alex Rodriguez was published. The same thing happened with an anonymous Jets official trashing Terrell Owens.
Hoyt did mention an example of an anonymous source being used appropriately though: a man who witnessed an attack in Manhattan feared speaking on the record because the attacker was still free.
But what about when nobody’s safety is on the line? What if there are no public figures being insulted, and the story being researched is basically free of controversy?
My story about the new Starbucks drink size was the perfect example. The story I was writing was not attacking the drink size in any way, and the comments I received from Starbucks employees were informative, and in no way incriminating or negative toward their employer.
I understand that corporate policy prevents employees from speaking on the record about Starbucks, but how should a reporter handle that?
I think it was obvious that the information I received from them was not made up simply because I had no motive to do so. It is not difficult to gather real commentary from Starbucks employees and the story was not the type that required new or secretive information to further my point. Therefore, I submitted the story with anonymous sources quoted. In my opinion, it was okay to keep the sources anonymous.
Some other very important people with extremely valid opinions agree with me. I just can’t say who.