This is about sources and confidentiality. What if you read a news article in the paper and you knew that the reporter didn't have the whole story, that the interviews produced half truths. And you knew the inside scope, as a lay person, with no journalistic relationship to the paper. And it would make a great story. Knowing what you now know about the laws protecting a journalist's right to keep their anonymous sources anonymous, would you call the paper and trust becoming an anonymous source?
href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>
3 comments:
YES!
Double yes if what you know can ease someone's burden or make your community a better place.
But, be prepared not to agree 100% with how the journalist uses what you offer.
I'd say yes. If you believe you can aid in injecting truth to a news article, which will directly reflect upon the community, then why not?
The news in general might be better if people as a generalization treated it as so sacred.
I think most people, who knew the truth about a story would call and inform the reporter that they didn't have the whole story. Personally, I've done as much in the past, even before I became educated about the do's and don'ts of the profession.
Post a Comment