The Crazy Ex-Girlfriend
While using an unnamed source on occasion and in very specific circumstances is a legitimate journalistic tool, relying on it should be extremely limited. Constantly using unnamed sources is lazy journalism. An unnamed source has nothing to lose when he or she makes a claim. Since they are anonymous, they can get away with not being truthful. How is the reader to know if the source is reputable? It could have been the subject’s ex-wife or mother-in-law. We don’t know!
“President Chen spoke calmly and confidently about the likely continuation of the government shutdown. An unnamed source close to the president, however, say that behind closed doors he is furious about the situation and remains unwilling to negotiate.”
We have no idea who this source is. Maybe it was one of the president’s trusted advisors, or maybe it was his 10-year-old daughter. It could have been the White House Chef who was highly offended last week when the president said that his scallop sashimi with Meyer lemon confit was inedible. We can’t possibly know!
Unnamed sources [ən-nāmd sȯrs-əz]—attributing information to an anonymous individual.
Comments