When and how should news outlets publish anonymous Op-eds?
On September 5, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted, “TREASON?”
This was an astonishing tweet from the President, even for Mr. Trump’s record of debatable tweets.
What could have possibly caused him to post the tweet?
This tweet is in response to New York Times published anonymous opinion article, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” which talked about how Trump’s own officials were “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his [Trump’s] worst inclinations.” The public was shocked by both its content and the undisclosed identity of the author, who the byline only disclosed to be a senior official within the Trump administration.
It was one of the seven New York Times articles published under anonymity.
Analysis of event
Anonymity is rarely granted by the New York Times.
The Times has very clear publishing procedures and policies regarding anonymity. Usually, such decisions are reserved for situations where the author’s safety is on the line. All the other instances of anonymous op-ed publications in the New York Times are on the topic of human rights violations. All but one author identify as citizens within the state of oppression they were disclosing and have chosen to remain anonymous since the publication of their articles. The Times claimed that they granted such an instance of rare anonymity to protect the senior official from losing his job for disclosing such “an important perspective” to their readers, a crucial part of their journalistic mission. Their concerns were not unfounded. President Trump called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate the source of the essay, and when one deputy advisor was accused of being the anonymous op-ed writer, she was reassigned to the Energy Department in February 2020. Some argued that Trump’s actions were against free speech, while others claimed that the author should have owned up to his opinion and ethical actions.
So, this makes me wonder, does anonymity help uphold journalistic ideals?
Opposition
News outlets like The Tennessean and Commonwealth Journal argue that anonymity should never be granted for op-ed pieces, asserting that anonymity would give leeway for inaccurate and unfair reports, destroying the hard-gained trust between the media and their audience. These news outlets have even proclaimed that “they will never allow anonymous op-eds” to prevent the proliferation of false information. They propose that instead of publishing of anonymous op-eds, journalists can use anonymous sources to formulate their own articles.
Admittingly, anonymity could lower the credibility of news sources. Journalists of big news outlets such as CNN or USA Today are sometimes forced to retract their pieces and resign due to the fabrication of anonymous sources they used in their pieces. CNN has published articles with fake citations that oppose Trump, which has already sparked distrust for big left-wing media outlets. Accusations of fake news sparked debates about anonymous sources, prompting major U.S. newspapers to establish or update rules for using anonymous sources.
Arguably, in this case, the New York Times’ use of anonymity was inappropriate.
While the Times adhered to its general guiding principles on shielding the identity of some sources, this case differs because the anonymity is not about protecting the anonymous person’s own safety. Instead, it is about avoiding responsibility and removal from office by the Trump administration. However, as a political worker, political expression is an obligation and a responsibility.
What’s more, this anonymous approach by the New York Times has had a negative social effect. It did not inform the public on the divisions within the Republican Party, but rather made the public feel that the Times was endorsing the credibility of the anonymous person and supporting its preconceived left-wing biases.
Lastly, this anonymity gives the reporting a conspiracy style; instead of using polls from trusted avenues, it deals with the core events of the administration without providing the corresponding transparency. The manipulable topic and use of anonymity does not generate real credibility, as taking away the viewer's ability to track down the news source and doesn't promote meaningful conversations on a national scale.
Supporting
Despite its downsides, however, publishing anonymously should not be rules out as a possibility for the press because the free flow of information is a necessary foundation for a healthy, functioning democracy.
Supporters of anonymity in media and news outlets like the Economist believe that “what is written is more important than who writes it.” The key difference between publications of the press and social media posts is that the brand name of news outlets endorses its publications with its credibility. The editors in the news outlets help ensure that an article is not only well-written but also bears relevance, importance, and credibility. For this reason, we still read news outlets like the economists who publish all of their articles without a byline, but not so much what is published on the personal social media accounts of individual writers for those news outlets.
Journalists argue that being forced to disclose confidential sources or information infringes on the news gathering process and erodes the independence of the news media from the government. Doing so will prohibit the free flow of information because journalists are then pressured to find non-anonymous sources. In addition, this results in journalists' reluctance when investigating into sensitive matters, thereby undermining the content of the news. Both of these consequences pose great compromises to a very crucial public interest that lies in the foundations of democratic societies. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the media’s right to concealment.
The supporting side for animosity grants reminds the public that we should acknowledge that the existence of false anonymous information does not mean that all anonymous information should be banned, but instead, we should take measures to acknowledge the concerns outlined in the anti-anonymous side.
The lingering question is: "How to prove that the media and journalists have a legitimate purpose when using this right? What is more, if there is a legitimate purpose, does it always justify the means?"
Importance
The right to publish and share information anonymously has deep ties to one of the foundations of American beliefs — free speech. For authors, losing the right to write under pseudonyms or voice their opinions without association with their identity can potentially undermine their basic right to free speech. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted the Shield Law, which protects the right of journalists to remain anonymous. And even in these courts, the degree of recognition of journalistic anonymity has varied from time to time and has been unpredictable. To date, the debate over press anonymity remains unresolved, and the legal status is extremely precarious: The Supreme Court has protected anonymous speech under the First Amendment, but as with other constitutional rights, it has balanced protection against competing interests, notably in the areas of political activity and campaign finance.
Nowadays, most media outlets that use anonymous information will agree to certain restrictions on anonymity. To address the common downsides associated with anonymity, the press can take the following measures to ensure that anonymous articles adhere to the purpose of journalism. The press should provide sufficient reasoning for anonymity or actively look for other available sources of information before resorting to using anonymous information. To increase accountability, they should avoid abuse of power or biased reports by being mediators who connect their audiences with the writer. The press can also provide transparency if they give viewers viewers the power and ability to track down news sources.
Anonymous journalism is a double-edged sword; sometimes, it is a voice of justice, but in other times, it can be a conspiracy monger. The question journalism will always face is how to wield anonymity well to promote justice instead of increasing polarization. The discussion of anonymous journalism will help the press to protect freedom of the press and prevent its abuse by establishing a code of conduct for the proper use of anonymous sources so that journalistic ideals can be protected, and the public interest can be maximized.
Works Cited
Americans Are Becoming More Aware of Their First Amendment Rights, First Amendment Watch, 1 July 2019, https://firstamendmentwatch.org/americans-are-becoming-more-aware-of-their-first-amendment-rights/.
“Anonymous Sources Are Dangerous Territory.” Commonwealth Journal, The Commonwealth Journal Editorial Board, 9 Sept. 2018, https://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/local_news/anonymous-sources-are-dangerous-territory/article_552338de-d7c7-576c-bf24-6870b81cf7bf.html.
“Anonymous Sources Are Dangerous Territory.” Commonwealth Journal, The Commonwealth Journal Editorial Board, 9 Sept. 2018, https://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/local_news/anonymous-sources-are-dangerous-territory/article_552338de-d7c7-576c-bf24-6870b81cf7bf.html.
Boyle, Matthew. “Three Employees Resign from CNN amid Very Fake News Scandal.” Breitbart, 26 June 2017, https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2017/06/26/three-employees-resign-from-cnn-amid-very-fake-news-scandal/.
Christinawilkie. “Trump Wants Attorney General Jeff Sessions to Investigate Writer of Anonymous NYT Op-Ed.” CNBC, CNBC, 7 Sept. 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/trump-wants-jeff-sessions-to-investigate-writer-of-anonymous-nyt-op-ed.html.
“A Declining Share of Republicans Say They Feel Warmly toward Donald Trump.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 14 Nov. 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/14/before-midterms-trumps-image-among-republicans-had-become-less-positive/ft_2022-11-14_trump_01/.
“I Am Part of the Resistance inside the Trump Administration.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Sept. 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html.
Matthews, Dylan. “Trump Is Accusing His Administration’s Anonymous Op-Ed Writer of Treason. That’s Nonsense.” Vox, Vox, 5 Sept. 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17825062/new-york-times-trump-op-ed-treason.
Phillips, Leanne. “Can a Journalist Be Forced to Reveal Confidential Sources?” LegalZoom, Legalzoom.com, 2 May 2022, https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-a-journalist-be-forced-to-reveal-confidential-sources.
Plazas, David. “Why the Tennessean Does Not Publish Anonymous Op-Eds: Plazas.” The Tennessean, The Tennessean, 7 Sept. 2018, https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/david-plazas/2018/09/07/new-york-times-anonymous-oped-tennessean/1212127002/.
“Why Are the Economist’s Writers Anonymous?” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 5 Sept. 2013, https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous.
