Editing Source (journalism) (section)

=== Anonymous source ===
The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality as the journalist. (Lawyers are generally protected from [[subpoena]] in these cases by [[attorney–client privilege]].) Legal staff may need to give counsel about whether it is advisable to publish certain information, or about court proceedings that may attempt to learn confidential information. Senior editors are in the loop to prevent reporters from fabricating non-existent anonymous sources and to provide a second opinion about how to use the information obtained, how to or how not to identify sources, and whether other options should be pursued.

The use of anonymous sources has always been controversial. Some news outlets insist that anonymous sources are the only way to obtain certain information, while others prohibit the use of unnamed sources at all times.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shedden |first=David |url=http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=49&aid=64013 |title=Anonymous Sources &#124; Poynter |publisher=Poynter. |access-date=2015-02-28}}</ref> News organizations may impose safeguards, such as requiring that information from an anonymous source be corroborated by a second source before it can be printed.

Prominent reports based on anonymous sources have sometimes been proven to be incorrect. For instance, much of the [[O. J. Simpson]] reporting from unnamed sources was later deemed inaccurate.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shepard |first=Alicia C. |url=https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030816085328/https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596 |url-status=dead |archive-date=August 16, 2003 |title=Anonymous Sources |publisher=American Journalism Review |access-date=December 1, 2019}}</ref> ''[[Newsweek]]'' retracted a [[2005 Quran desecration controversy|story]] about a [[Qur'an 2|Qur'an]] allegedly being flushed down a toilet—the story had been based upon one unnamed military source.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601262.html |title=Newsweek Retracts Guantanamo Story |work=The Washington Post |date= 2005-05-17|access-date=2015-02-28 |first=Howard |last=Kurtz}}</ref>

After the embarrassment, a news organization will often "clamp down" on the guidelines for using unnamed sources, but those guidelines are often forgotten after the scandal dies down.{{Citation needed|date=July 2018}} One study found that large newspapers' use of anonymous sources dropped dramatically between 2003 and 2004. The [[Project for Excellence in Journalism]], a research group, found use of anonymous sources dropped from 29 percent of all articles in 2003 to just seven percent in 2004,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/business/media/14reporter.html|title=Fewer Sources Go Nameless in the Press, Survey Shows|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2015-02-28|first=Katharine Q.|last=Seelye|date=2005-03-14}}</ref> following widespread embarrassment of media after the Bush administration claims that Iraq had WMDs were found to be without basis.