Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It concerns me that they don't know the difference between 'lead' and 'led'.

Otherwise I love the idea that there must be an attributable source to all information they present -- no more "senior government officials" or "anonymous FBI agents"...




Sometimes anonymous sources are the only way you can cover a story. For example, during my time as a local journalist I regularly had former and current employees of my local council leak information to me. But I couldn't name them so I would refer to them as 'senior council officials' or 'council insiders'.


> Sometimes anonymous sources are the only way you can cover a story

Then don't. Source won't go on record? Then they aren't a source.


That's not how it always works.

I once had a source come to me with information about how families were being shipped in to my town from another city because the housing crisis affecting the UK meant local councils could not house residents locally.

In another case, I was given salary details for council employees who were being paid in a similar manner to this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/nhs-chief-on-reco....

In one other case a council employee told me how morale was low in the council's social services department due to pressure from senior officials and the workload. The source said there were concerns over how this was affecting the welfare of the children they were meant to look after.

In all three cases the stories checked out and in the published story I wrote that the initial information came from an unnamed source. In the housing case I was able to speak to some of the families and they went on record. In the payroll case I published the salaries and the council did not say my information was false. In the social services case they gave us a statement.

The problem with using anonymous sources comes when journalists use them as an excuse for publishing unverified information. If my sources had gone on record they would have most likely have lost their jobs meaning future whistle-blowers/sources would not have spoken to me or would have not spoken to other journalists in the future. If that happens how can institutions and individuals be held to account?


Direct evidence is a substitute. But take this example:

> in one other case a council employee told me how morale was low

How can you verify this is true? How did you check it out?


On that particular point I made a judgement call based on the fact that previous information this source had given me had checked out. The issue of low morale among social workers is a topic that has been widely discussed over the years in the UK along with that of high caseloads. Other people in the town I had spoken to in the health and social care industry also expressed similar sentiment about the state of social services. One of the first 'anonymous source' stories I did at the paper was about the social services and police dropping the ball in a child abuse case where a father impregnated his daughter. So that was the context of my judgement on that particular point.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: