I just read an article in my favorite magazine, Allure, about narcissistic behavior and how it is becoming more prevalent in our celebrity obsessed society. The author, Judith Newman, wrote a fantastic article after she interviewed a woman who had risen quite quickly in the TV producing industry.
She described how this woman was very pretty and very smart, and as a result, believed that the world owed something to her. Overall, it was a well-written, well-researched article. There was just one huge problem. Judith Newman revealed that she had convinced the source not to use her real name because of the potential problems that she would face after the article came out.
Now, I think that because the source wanted to use her name in the article, Newman should have used it. As journalists, we are taught that we should always use a source's name if we can get it. Newman had the name.
I suppose that her reason for withholding the source's name was noble, but I don't think it was Newman's responsibility to make sure the woman knew what the consequences would be. If the source was a smart woman, as Newman says, than she would have been able to foresee the consequences of using her name.
Journalism stories should be informative and journalists should strive to be honest with their audiences. Journalists have more of a responsibility to their readers, not their sources. I'm not saying journalists have no responsibility to their sources, but they shouldn't protect a source that doesn't want or need protecting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That's really interesting. I've never heard of a reporter convincing the source to remain anonymous. I would understand it a little more if the source wasn't as smart or aware of the consequences, but if the woman is as smart as the reporter says, I would assume that she would realize the consequences of her statements.
Like you said, we are taught to use sources names whenever possible, unless it is going to cause harm to the source. I think it's commendable that the reporter was honest about convincing the woman to remain anonymous, but I'm surprised she did it.
Is there anyway you could find the story online and give a link to it on your post? I would be interested to read the article to see for myself.
Unfortunately they don't post the articles online at Allure, and I can't find it anywhere else.
I completely agree with what you're saying, Colleen. In order to stay true to the story the author should've included the source's name. It worries me that the author may be too involved in the story to tell it without being biased.
Post a Comment