They Aren't "Anonymous" Sources, They Are "Undisclosed" Sources
... Anonymous sources have provided some of the most important information in The Times, like the disclosure of the Bush administration’s extralegal bugging of international communications. But they have embarrassed the newspaper too, as with unsubstantiated suggestions that John McCain had an extramarital affair with a lobbyist.
Vital as they can be, their use is sometimes silly: a CBS producer talking about Katie Couric could not be quoted by name because management did not want anyone criticizing her. The producer said people who work with her like her.
Readers hate anonymous sources because they cannot judge the sources’ credibility for themselves. ...
Since the sources are known to the reporters, they are not actually anonymous. They are simply undisclosed to readers. Which contrasts fairly dramatically with anonymous bloggers, who have no indicia of reliability whatsoever. See also.
Leave a comment