Ben Smith prints in full a memo attacking several potential SCOTUS nominees - all women. Not only does he give the memo considerable space, but he grants the memo's author anonymity without even acknowledging that he's doing so. (He describe the source as a "conservative politico.")
Why the anonymity, especially since Smith acknowledges that the memo is "tendentious"? And why try to slide it in under the radar, instead of owning up to it? He doesn't say.
Here's what the Society of Professional Journalists has to say about anonymity in their Code of Ethics:
- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
- Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information ...
For its part, the New York Times' policy on anonymity (violated regularly) says that "articles should tersely explain what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, and should shed light on the reasons and the source's motives."
The Ethics Code also says that journalists should " (d)iligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing." We'll give Smith a pass on that one, since this is a blog post and not an article.
But why doesn't Smith name the memo's source? True, the writing is ungrammatical in spots, but he can't just be protecting the author from embarrassment. And why are people who point out these lapses treated like unreasonable complainers?
As Atrios would say: Time for a blogger ethics panel.
Comments