Unnamed Sources: A Utilitarian Exploration of their Justification and Guidelines for Limited Use

Abstract

This article critically examines the practice of unnamed sourcing in journalism. A literature review highlights arguments in favor of and against their use. The authors examine some common examples of anonymous sourcing using the lens of utilitarianism, the ethical model commonly used to justify the practice. We find that few uses of unnamed sourcing can be justified when weighed against diminished credibility and threats to fair, transparent reporting. The authors suggest specific guidelines for journalists that, if followed, would curb many of the pedestrian uses of unnamed sourcing but still allow for the practice in specific circumstances.

Notes

1. The 2004 Associated Press Stylebook did mention “seeking” another source—but even that loose directive was removed in 2009.

2. Because transparency is at stake, these attribution guidelines bear similarity to the suggested guidelines journalists should follow to minimize and justify deception in the undercover reporting process: only go undercover when all other alternative methods have been considered/tried and only for an issue vital to public interest, and share with the public your methods and rationales (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007; SPJ, 1996).

3. These guidelines do not specifically call for managerial approval. News organizations following this outline would naturally involve editors in a reporter's rare decision to use unnamed sourcing.

4. These guidelines should not be construed to prevent journalists from withholding public information as part of their duty to “minimize harm” (SPJ, 1996). The tenets of utilitarianism would justify withholding the names of juvenile offenders or sex crime victims.

5. However, the Washington Post did not explain its reasoning for anonymity nor provide many details about the identity of its sources.