'USA Today' Drastically Reduces Its Use of Anonymous Sources

[Freddie Stubbs]

By Joe Strupp

Published: May 18, 2005 12:50 PM ET

NEW YORK One year after instituting tighter controls on confidential sourcing, USA Today has reduced the use of anonymous sources in its pages by 75%, according to Editor Ken Paulson, who implemented the tougher rules shortly after becoming editor.

"We still probably average about three or four anonymous sources in our copy each week," Paulson told E&P. "But it used to average about a dozen per week."

Paulson, former director of the First Amendment Center, took over the USA Today editorship in April 2004, just weeks after former editor Karen Jurgensen stepped down in the wake of the Jack Kelley scandal.

Kelley quit in January 2004 after questions arose over the validity of numerous stories he had written going back several years. His departure prompted an in-depth internal investigation that revealed he had routinely fabricated elements of dozens of stories and sought to cover up his misdeeds, while the paper had systematic problems with editorial reviews.

more: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000926912

[Oreo]

1. Too late for Nixon

Pesky anonymous Deep Throat leaking those stories!

[AlGore-08.com]

6. Difference between Watergate and current practices

The WashPost's editor would not put the story into print until they had several named sources confirm the facts were correct.

It doesn't matter how few or how many anonymous sources are used - - the entire media needs to get back to fact checking - - especially when the initial information comes from an anonymous source.

[gavodotcom]

12. Agreed.

Spot-On.

Anonymous sources have their use: pointing you to stories and people to whom you can talk, not giving you quotes or a lede.

I'm saddened that Newsweek got burned, but that's exactly why you don't handle things the way they did. You negate the good your story can do.

[lala_rawraw]

2. Let's let them know how we feel

by telling them "buh bye"

[oneighty]

3. That is not fair

Now the Bushies will have fewer chances of releasing horse-shit declarations.

180

[triguy46]

4. Following Scottie's direction

they will allow for single, anonymous sources if they are WH staff. All others are untrustworthy. In fact, we really don't need any source for the news than Cap'n Scottie.

[bemildred]

5. Ooooh goody. Now we can trust them again.

:banghead::banghead:

[EST]

7. Perhaps I'm too simplistic, but wouldn't a sure cure be

an industry-wide agreement that, if the info provided turned out to be BS, the penalty would be outing the source?

[gavodotcom]

13. Because if the source IS trusted, and they get something wrong

You burn them and lose your source.

Say Colin Powell told you that Bush sits down when he pees, but Powell says he won't go on the record. You write the story, cite Mr. Anonymous, and the White House shows a photoshopped picture of Bush standing in front of a urinal. So you say, "Well, Powell told us you sit down."

Guess what happens next time you call Powell to ask whether or not the WMD information is correct? *click*

You never, ever burn your source. You can, however, not print a freakin' story until you have TWO people confirm it, and/or you've got hard copies of the documents you're reporting. That's responsible journalism.

The problem with what Newsweek did is that they took their anonymous source's story and wanted to run with it. That's fine. They contact two D. Defense officials. That's good, too. Now the problem is that they never got the first guy to say ANYTHING, and the second guy never actually CONFIRMED that the Koran was flushed, just that something else was wrong in the story. That's a set up by the official. Newsweek has admitted that's what happened. That's one source journalism, and there's no place for that.

Before you get me wrong, I've got no personal vandetta against Newsweek, it just makes me mad that this story is about Newsweek and not about the incident. An analogy would be the police letting a serial killer go because they searched his house without a warrant. They found the bodies, but it was an illegal search and can't be used in court.

[mrdmk]

15. One needs to get two separate sources that do not have a

connection with each other. Judith Miller and her run up on the war did just that, she would get information from people connected to the White House then go and ask the White House as her second informant. It is more difficult to get two people to agree with something who do not know each other. Hell, that would require work!

[kenny blankenship]

8. Chilling effect on our public debate and liberties=

="Mission Accomplished", for the Bush Terror Gang.

[AP]

9. Sometimes, it's obvious why you need to use an anonymous source.

However, in the last 5-10 years, I have been shocked by the extent to which newspapers will print unsourced quotes. And it's in situations where there's no reason that person should be anonymous. If you're part of chorus of people taking shots at Clinton or Gore, and it's clear that a lot of people are out there who are going to reward you for your nastiness, why in the world do you need to be anonymous?

I guarantee you the papers do this because they know that their credibility would take a bigger hit by revealing their sources than it takes when you read article after article with the opinions of anonymous people.

[librechik]

10. USA TODAY drastically reduces size

(tomorrow's headline)

can't do it--no reporter can, 100% of the time.

[Voltaire99]

11. Who takes USA Today seriously?

They can source their stories from Martians for all I care. It's all-puff, all-empire, all the time, at Gannett.

[Malikshah]

14. So very true-- I remember Doonsbury's take on them

McNews that leaves you hungry 5 minutes later...graph heavy and substance lite...

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wicket]

17. welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Bridget Burke]

18. I trust we'll see no "anonymous White House sources"...

Spouting the government line. Or is anonymity just bad when the story is critical of Bush & Co?

Stories of disrespect to the Koran are not new, unfortunately. No less a conservative than William F Buckley came down on the persecution of Newsweek. He pointed out that--after Abu Ghraib--it's quite possible to believe that a few US soldiers are capable of doing wrong.

Edited to add: Interesting link there. "Superpatriots"?