The use of anonymous sources in the news has been debated among journalists and non-journalists alike since its inception. According to the American Journal Review, many inaccuracies arose from the use of anonymous sources in stories about the O.J. Simpson case. It revived the debate and deepened the divide. Journalists can agree that identifying the sources in their stories is ideal but not always feasible.

Proponents of the use of anonymous sources say some stories can’t be told without using them. They look at the issue on a case-by-case basis. Most blame their use on competition even if studies show it makes the stories and journalists look significantly less credible to readers.

There have been several instances where history showed the positive of using anonymous sources. For example, everyone knows the story of Watergate from 1973. Anonymous sources were the basis from which the story grew, and Deep Throat was the key to unlock the mystery. If Woodward, Bernstein and The Washington Post didn’t use these anonymous sources in uncovering the scandal, President Nixon’s resignation may have never occurred and the public may have never learned the truth.

Opponents of the use of anonymous sources say they hinder credibility. They apply universal rules to the issue. Some blame their use on lazy reporting; if the journalists really tried, they could get the source to agree to be named.

There also have been several instances where history showed the negative of using anonymous sources. For example, not everyone knows about the Janet Cooke scandal from 1981. This former Washington Post reporter wrote “Jimmy’s World,” an article about an 8-year-old heroin addict with “needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin, brown arms.” That same Woodward nominated the story for the Pulitzer Prize, and it won. But then people started checking and found her sources were fabricated, and Cooke made up the story. She said she did it because of the pressure of the Post environment to satisfy her editors.

Newspapers take risks when they print stories like these. Other journalists would agree that anonymous sources should be used as a last resort. In other words, they should only use them in their stories only if they absolutely have to. An easy step-by-step process should be used to decide whether or not to use anonymous sources.

First, the journalist needs to pressure while still assuring sources to get them to agree to be identified in the paper. If still unsuccessful, the journalist then should see if they could get that same important information from anyone else who would permit identification. But if this source is the only one, journalists must explain in their stories why this source needs to be anonymous. The more open and honest the journalists are with their readers, the more credible the journalists appear to be.

It’s important as a journalist not to make a habit of using anonymous sources. It’s no way to build a relationship of trust with your readers and editors. The more these readers and editors trust the journalists, the more room the journalists have to use anonymous sources. Credibility simply begets credibility.