Woodward, Okla. — An official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that reporters who continually quote officials who speak on the condition of anonymity are ruining journalism.

Seriously, what is happening to serious journalism?

I fully support a journalist’s right to protect their sources, but there is a time and place for anonymous sources, and it’s not everyday on every news story.

Yet that is how many Associated Press reporters treat their stories, some of which address the most important issues of today from war to terrorism trials to natural disasters.

It’s one unnamed “official” after another.

These reporters buy into excuses like, ‘it’s an ongoing investigation, so I can’t really talk about it unless you don’t use my name.’

However, if the information they are providing is really all that sensitive then they probably wouldn’t be giving it out in the first place, name or no name.

Since it’s obvious that they can discuss this information, why are journalists so lenient to allow these so-called officials to hide behind anonymity?

The Woodward News doesn’t believe in using anonymous sources except in certain rare and/or extreme cases.

In my three years with the paper, the only time I remember using anonymous sources was on a story in a domestic violence series that the paper ran in 2007 where I interviewed two domestic violence victims and changed their names in the article to protect their identities.  And that was a feature story, which is handled differently than news stories.

For those of you think once in three years might not sound that rare, my editor Johnny McMahan has been in the business for three decades and can only remember using anonymous sources on two or three stories in his entire 30-year career.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the temptation that exists for journalists to use anonymous sources.  There’s the feeling that maybe you’ve gotten “inside information” so that you and you alone have the “real story.”

And I definitely understand why all those officials love the anonymity, because it means no accountability.

Not only is there no accountability with the public, but the media can’t really hold them accountable either.

If it turns out that what they said wasn’t entirely true, what do they care since their name isn’t attached?  And what is the reporter who used them going to say, ‘well that unnamed official that I quoted lied?’  What is that going to mean to the reader?

Why have journalists forgotten their obligation to their readers and/or listeners and/or viewers, (because there are similar problems with broadcast journalism)?

When we continually use one unnamed official after another, how can media consumers continue to trust us?  How are they to know this person is really an official and not just some janitor (although the janitor might have the real inside scoop, what with taking out everybody’s trash)?

When I put my name to something I like to know that I’ve done my utmost to provide my readers with credible information from credible sources.

I think when journalists use anonymity on such a casual basis and don’t name sources, they lose that credibility.

I also feel that if someone isn’t willing to put their name to and stand behind the information they are giving me, then how much can that information really be worth?

********

In an unrelated matter, have you seen the Cheetos/airplane  commercial?  It has to be one of the dumbest and counterproductive commercials I’ve ever seen.

If you haven’t seen it, the premise is that this woman is riding on an airplane and sitting next to this guy who’s snoring loudly.  How frustrating!  So what does she do?  She looks to the flight attendant who’s getting a totally creepy massage from an animated Chester Cheetah, who tells her something to the effect of ‘you know you want to.’  She then looks down at an open bag of crunchy Cheetos and next thing you know, she’s shoving two up the guy’s nose.

And really that’s going to make me want to buy Cheetos?  Last time I checked, they were supposed to be a snack chip right?  Well, thanks to the brilliant (imagine air quotes) marketers at Frito Lay, from now on I don’t think I will ever be able to look at, let alone eat, Cheetos without thinking of boogers.  Yum!

Seeing as it’s a campaign year, I can’t help but think it’s a smear tactic, by Hostess maybe, wanting you to put down the potato chips and pick up some snack cakes.



Rowynn Ricks is the assistant editor for The News.  She can be reached for comment at reporter1@woodwardnews.net.