By: Joe Strupp In the uproar over the Jayson Blair fiasco, newsroom sins ranging from fabricated quotes to falsified expense reports have sparked a flurry of self-examination. What caught the eye of some, however, was the shocking revelation that
The New York Times' editors had allowed Blair to use anonymous sources on several occasions -- including in major Page One pieces -- and not even ask who they were.
This has prompted at least one editor to require greater scrutiny of
Times stories slated for publication in his paper, while others admit they are casting a more skeptical eye on wire material and syndicated pieces. "If a significant story comes in (from another news organization) and it is single sourced or anonymously sourced, there is a heightened awareness," said Brian Toolan, editor of
The Hartford Courant. "It should make everyone more aware." Paul Tash, editor and president of the
St. Petersburg (Fla.)
Times, agreed. "We will be even more wary about stories from our wire services based on anonymous sources," he said. "Even those from
The New York Times."
Denver
Rocky Mountain News Editor John Temple took Tash's skepticism a step further, ordering last week that no
New York Times stories using anonymous sources may run without a review from a group of top editors. And on Friday, in
USA Today, Al Neuharth called for a "ban" on "all anonymous sources."
Ripples from the Blair episode serve as "a reminder to every editor taking stuff from the outside to be more aware," observed Andrew Gully, managing editor of the
Boston Herald. "We will look at those things differently."
Such skepticism has drawn concern from those who depend on newspapers running their syndicated and wire copy. "Blair's dishonesty stains us all," National Society of Newspaper Columnists President Mike Leonard told
E&P. "For columnists, there could be greater scrutiny and efforts from editors to have us list sources and attribute quotes. The result could be choppier and less-interesting writing."
But Associated Press executive editor Kathleen Carroll offered little concern that it would hurt her organization's reputation. "We don't have a whole lot of anonymous source material because we push to get it on the record," she said.
Most newspaper editors said Blair's use of fake sources would never have occurred at their newspapers because strict rules for the use of anonymous sources -- such as the disclosure of their identities to editors -- are in place.
"The onus is on the reporter to convince the editor that there is no other way to get the story," said Karen Jurgensen, editor at
USA Today. "You have to know exactly who it is." She said the paper had in the past barred the use of anonymous sources completely until the last decade. Now, she says, "they should rarely be used, if ever."
Nearly all of the editors who spoke with
E&P said their policy is to discourage anonymous sources, but if they are used the editor must know the source and information must be corroborated. "You have to have a person in a supervisorial position who can make a judgment on it," said Phil Bronstein, executive vice president and editor at the
San Francisco Chronicle. "The general practice is not to use them unless there is no other way to get information."
Frank Scandale, editor of
The Record in Hackensack, N.J., agreed. "It helps the editor to assess the validity of the information if they know who the source is," he said. Scandale also bars anonymous sources from making personal attacks.
Douglas C. Clifton, editor of
The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, said using anonymous sources remains valuable: "The reality is, you have to sometimes." Rex Smith, editor of the
Albany (N.Y.)
Times-Union, stressed that references to anonymous sources need to be as specific as possible, citing examples such as "a state official familiar with the budget process."
---
E&P welcomes letters to the editor:
letters@editorandpublisher.com.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here