Every now and then I will ask my friend John a serious question about journalism. I do this because a) he is a good journalist b) he is a good person c) he is smart d) he allows me to ask my journeyman questions.. so far. The other day I started a short email discussion with him about sources in reporting. If you recall in my previous post I was more upset by single source reporting versus anonymous reporting. I now think that it really depends on the story yet John did point me to a couple of good debates on anonymous sources (which he is very much against and does not use in his work).
Today on Poynter Online (a journalism professional's forum) there is a quote from an exchange at the White House (full text may be found on the White House's press briefing transcript) that I will quote here, I think it is quite telling and I hope more reporters will do exactly what this one(ones?) did:
REPORTER: In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?Posted by dmason at May 18, 2005 01:02 PMSCOTT McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.
REPORTER: Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source. ...
Later in the briefing:
REPORTER: With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else's aren't.
McCLELLAN: No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I think you may have missed what I said. I think that we should move away from the use of -- the long-used practice of the background briefings, and we've taken steps to do that.