To reveal a source or not to reveal a source

By Austin Bates

Poynter Online recently brought up a story that the LA Times originally published concerning presidential candidate Barack Obama and his behavior at a party some six months ago. The knowledge of this party is largely obtained from a video given to the newspaper by an anonymous source. The story itself is of interest because of Obama's seemingly conflicted positions in his support of Israel AND Arab-Americans. Poynter Online brings attention to this story because a spokesman for presidential candidate John McCain is claiming now that the LA Times is intentionally suppressing information about the video's source, which for them could reveal more about Obama's relationship with members of the party, and, probably give them something to use against Obama in the continuing campaign for the White House.

Now, another reason this story is important, and that Poynter Online brings it us, is because of the issue of anonymous sources for stories, especially concerning politics. Poynter references the debacle with CBS and President Bush's supposed shirking of duties in the National Guard that lead to so much embarrassment for Dan Rather and CBS. In other words, anonymous sources can be excellent ways to make a story, but if what they have to offer is not verified, it can also lead to some seriously embarrassing admissions and apologies later.

One reason I found this article interesting is the questions offered on whether the anonymous source used for LA Times' story was appropriate. Kelley McBride, the author for the Poynter Online story, points out that, in this case, the video from the source was a good idea because it could not apparently be obtained any other way, and was crucial to the construction of the story (since the video was used for the description of the event Obama attended; the video itself as not been displayed to the public, possibly for fear of revealing who the source is). Further, McBride says, "If someone offered up a video that would document one of these events [the social event which Obama was recorded at], on the condition that he not be revealed as the source of the video, I'd advise a reporter to make that deal".

The questions come in at the end of the Poynter article, though, where McBride, rightly so, I believe, suggests that newspapers should be more transparent to their audience as to why the anonymous source they are using (or for that matter, any source) is trustworthy and accurate. McBride also suggests that newspapers be sure to provide reasons for why, if the source is anonymous, it is anonymous, and why the information they have is important to the story being presented.

In all, I found this article interesting, as I had been considering the issues of sources for stories in journalism, especially if they want to remain unknown. Now, of course this story is nothing of legal importance, such as the situations that have come up in my journalism classes, but the basic concept remains: how much are you willing to remain true to your word, and leave an anonymous source unknown? Under what conditions will this trust be granted? Under what conditions might this trust be broken? Revealing a source you promised to leave unnamed might not just damage their livelihood (maybe even life), but it could threaten your livelihood (or maybe even life) by having future sources be unwilling to give you information, knowing you broke promises in the past.

These are some interesting questions to consider for anyone moving into the realm of journalism.