Where do we draw the line with anonymous online sources?
The New Yorker doesn't turn up its nose at anonymous online commentators
In the journalism world, everyone’s always bellyaching about the use of anonymous sources — sources known to the reporter but not revealed to the reading public. When is it okay? When is it not? Shouldn’t you always identify your sources when you can?
The Washington Post’s ombudsman recently weighed in on the use of anonymous sources:
For example, Post policies say that editors have an “obligation” to know the identity of a reporter’s unnamed sources so they can “jointly assess” whether they should be used. “The source of anything that appears in the paper will be known to at least one editor,” the stylebook says.
via Andrew Alexander – Post Often Ignores Its Own Rules on Anonymous Sources – washingtonpost.com.
‘The source of anything must be known.’ That seems like a pretty clear rule.
Yet increasingly I am seeing journalists use anonymous comments from blogs and other online sources in their stories. A recent critical piece on the digital reader, the Kindle, in the New Yorker (a.k.a. bastion for journalistic virtue) relied on quite a bit of anonymous commentary from online sources, who are really “known” to nobody at all.
Nicholson Baker, writing for the New Yorker, was not a fan of the Kindle 2. At the end of the piece, he admits to preferring a real book and if not that, then a book on an iPhone, better to read under the covers while his wife sleeps. Alright….
In assessing the Kindle 2, Baker discusses its predecessor, the Kindle 1. It was not very pleasing to most users, writes Baker, quoting many an online commentator:
The Kindle 1’s design was a retro piece of bizarrerie—an unhandy, asymmetrical Fontina wedge of plastic. It had a keyboard composed of many rectangular keys that were angled like cars in a parking lot, and a long Next Page button that, as hundreds of users complained, made you turn pages by accident when you carried it around. “Honestly, the device is fugly,” a commentator named KenC said on the Silicon Alley Insider: “The early 90s called and they want their device back.” The comments on Engadget.com were especially pointed. “It looks like a Timex Sinclair glued to the bottom of an oversized 1st gen Palm device,” Marcus wrote. “That’s some ugly shit,” Johan agreed. “Was this damned thing designed by a band of drunken elves?” Jerome asked. CB summed it up: “It is truly butt ugly. wow. ugly.”
Jerome, Marcus, Johan, CB and KenC aren’t really “known,” not even to the reporter. They’re anonymous people who have created accounts or usernames at Engadget and Business Insider to comment on articles. “Fugly” KenC really hated the Kindle, commenting three times on this Business Insider post. CB has commented twice on Engadget and now he’s essentially an expert source on design aesthetics in the New Yorker. Marcus has only commented there that one time.
Johan who condemned the Kindle 1 as “ugly shit” seems a bit more reliable, or at least prolific at Engadget. In fact, his real name is attached to his account there: Johan Krüger-Haglert.
I am interested in this for two reasons:
I don’t necessarily question the practice of mining online comments for delicious tidbits for stories. But one reason for not using “traditional” anonymous sources, discussed by the Washington Post ombudsman, can apply to online anonymous sources as well:
Sources can make false or misleading assertions with impunity. Journalists can inflate a source’s reliability or even fabricate his or her existence.
via Andrew Alexander – Post Often Ignores Its Own Rules on Anonymous Sources – washingtonpost.com.
At least with online commentators, I can do a Google search and track them down, but that doesn’t prevent their “making false or misleading assertions with impunity.” For all we know, CB and Marcus work for Sony and want to influence public opinion of the Kindle to steer consumers towards Sony’s digital reader.
Unlikely, sure. But neither I nor Baker can vouch for them.
(By the way, I have no dog in this fight. I haven’t started using the Kindle or any other digital reader yet. I’m still falling in love with my new smartphone.)
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Other issues: an online “anonymous commenter” can just be competitors, tech zealot, shareholders of competitors, or have a conflict of interest, be a troll, etc. Unless it’s a whistleblower, I’d be generally suspicious of any comment from “Anon”.
Paul Carr wrote a piece on TechCrunch about sources who wish to remain anonymous (different from completely anonymous sources). I liked his take on it: if he finds out his source blatantly lied to him, he will out the source’s identity. I think that’s totally fair.
Come on, what’s your smartphone? I’ve subscribed to The New Yorker forever and probably I am just lazy in proofing and checking primary sources. I’m sort of getting addicted to writing back at True/Slant (I need to get my work done!) but one of your writer’s has discussed journalistic ethics – mainly, check your sources for validity, expertise, and truthfulness. In the tech sector, some anonymous falsehood could create havoc in the market. When is crying “Fire” in a crowded theater not a crime? Tom Medlicott
I’m a BlackBerry Tour user.
IPhone 3GS
In response to another comment. See in context »