Tim's rules for using anonymous sources

Hello!

I'm starting this blog to call attention to what I consider the improper use of anonymous sources in the media. The use of unnamed sources can sometimes serve useful purposes, but increasing it's merely a tactic employed to avoid doing real work.

As I told my friend Parker Donham:

Tim Bousquet’s rules for using anonymous sources:

1. The information gained through granting anonymity is not otherwise available. Or, put another way, granting anonymity is not a shortcut to doing the hard work of gathering solid information and good reporting.

2. The anonymous source must have something to lose, should anonymity not be given: loss of a job, etc.

3. Using an anonymous source must result in some positive public good. “Spinning” someone’s view is not a positive public good.

Bousquet adds:

When I was a reporter at a daily in the states, I had a publisher who wouldn’t allow me to use anonymous sources at all. At the time, I felt that policy unduly constrained me, but I soon discovered it made me a better reporter: I couldn’t just put any old shit out there, I had to document everything, peg every assertion to a named source or document, etc. Mostly, as anonymity is used today by much of the press, it’s an excuse for lazy reporting.

My aim is to start posting examples of the worst of anonymous sourcing. If I have time, I'll try to contact some of the editors and reporters directly for comment.

I hope you enjoy my efforts.