When a journalist uses an anonymous source, how does it all work? What are the conventional procedures?
High school journalist Dante Fuoco, 17, asked this of the New York Times. Managing editor Jill Abramson provided insightful answers valuable to any high school journalist who, like Fuoco, plans a career in professional journalism.
Here is a little advice from the New York Times on when to use an anonymous source:
“If the source has an important story to tell and cannot be persuaded to attach his/her name to the information, a journalist will make an early pledge to withhold the name of the source,” Abramson wrote. She urges the journalist to keep trying for open conversation.
She wants journalists to consider the following:
- Only use an anonymous source when it is absolutely necessary, when the story would be nowhere near as compelling without the addition of the source.
- Source terms can change over the life of a story. If you decide to grant anonymity, don’t end the conversation there. Do your best to persuade the source otherwise, after trust has been built.
“The best argument to make is that a story will have far more impact and credibility if it is based on a named source rather than an anonymous one. Sometimes this argument has to be made several times. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t,” Abramson said.
See Fuoco’s and Abramson’s interesting exchange here.
