"
Damn right Clark!
NB C-notes
-
From the WaPo:
NEW YORK -- The Society of Professional Journalists condemned NBC News for
practicing "checkbook journalism" by chartering a jet that carrie...
14 years ago
9 comments:
I don't think annoymous comments about a source's opinion should be used. It's one thing to use an anonymous source to obtain sensitive facts about a case. It is entirely another matter to use anonymity to "talk behind someone's back." This does not seem like reporting and ceratinly does not seem fair.
We all have a right to know and face our accusers. This seems like the most basic denial of that principle.
Damn Right Chanda!
I also think the condition of anonymity is an important thing to disclose - it gives the reader a little bit of background as to why a source was used and what authority they have over the matter they are discussing.
I mostly agree with this, but looking at it from the reporter's perspective, he said he is hearing these things and is he supposed to withhold them? It's interesting to think about it from that angle. Even though he absolutely should use them responsibly and neither of these cases carried enough weight in the public interest (like national security, for instance) to warrant use of an anonymous source's opinion, I can see how one could be put in a situation where there is so much information coming in, but no one will put their name to it. It must be frustrating to try to parse out where that line is.
It seems like in the Annie Le case it would have been more relevant to bring up the former incident with Clark's girlfriend, which was a police record, rather than an anonymous lab partner's opinion of him. Do you guys think it would have been acceptable/relevant to publish if the source had agreed to be named but said the same thing?
Actually in the Annie Le murder/Clark's case, absolutely not. I don't think that opinion based remarks warrant any space in an article. Any speculative or opinionated remarks by a source should be vetted and weeded out instantaneously. With three simple questions - How do you know the "person of interest"? How close were you? And lastly, what was your relationship like with said person?
In Clark's case, if the source was just someone he worked with at arms length and didn't really talk to him much, then anything that would come out of that source's mouth is probably complete opinion and not worth using.
I agree, Chanda. Giving anonymous information is one thing. It's objective (or at least it should be) and relative to the understanding of the story being told. Information in this sense should be non-personal.
Opinions on the other hand should under no circumstances be anonymous. Your opinion is just that - your own. If you don't want people to know you said it, then don't say it at all. There is absolutely no need for anonymous opinions on matters in the news.
I think that the media use anything that will help sensationalize a story , as to what the public wants to hear.
In the Clark case ,he was the villain, so however the press could exemplify this they did.I think the ethics issue sometimes get lost in circumstances like this, by using anonymous sources to illustrate negativity about a suspect. When you have a horrific crime like this I think, the public wants to know the accused is a certain dark sociopathic type , to justify the crime.I think the press may feel the need exemplify the criminal,and absolve their fears, that just anybody could have committed such an act.This makes the public more likely to go to the media more for their news and comfort .So in criminal situations like this I can see why they may do this.
In other situations where there is not such a heinous crime involved and people's character , careers and reputations are at stake, the press should certainly , not use anonymous sources that are an opinion as it is just that an opinion and unless it is identified as that, it's gossip.
Even though we all agree opinions shouldn't used, especically not anonymously, it seems like this is done all the time! Even with a named source, it seems they are able to find all the people with the most negative or most positive opinions of the subject, depending on the slant. I have rarely read an article with two conflicting opinions given. Seems more like writing a persuasive paper than an article. This seems like a pretty accepted practice, though.
Let me qualify that last statement - I haven't seen conflicting opinions given when it comes to people like Clark or other accused persons. Often I've seen it in political articles or in other circumstances, but usually in a sentence starting with "Although..."
Post a Comment