But here, it’s important for the journalist to question the motivation of the source requesting the anonymity. Why do they wish to remain anonymous? Is their desire to remain anonymous outweighed by the public’s right to judge the veracity of the information with all the facts (including the identity of the source)? Do they really need to remain anonymous, or are they just hiding behind anonymity to make accusations they’d never make under their own names?
I think that, more often than not, it’s the latter. There’s no compelling need to grant anonymity to back-biting gossip mongers, giving them a national platform to spew unproven accusations without giving the public any information to judge their biases, motivations or accuracy. That’s just bad journalism, and it's lazy journalism.
Good post, Jeff.
Journalists are often very lazy, though.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
