There is a time and place for anonymous sources in journalism. But, in general, anonymous sources do bring into question the reasoning behind the anonymity. For that, among other reasons, it’s generally best to avoid anonymous sources if at all possible. It’s especially wise to avoid anonymous sources when those sources are slamming a person and, as is the case with Judge Sonia Sotomayor, slamming her with stereotypes that some would consider sexist. In this case, the anonymous sources, if they do in fact exist, seem cowardly and perhaps motivated by partisanship or ulterior motives.
From Media Matters:
On their July 14 evening news broadcasts, both ABC’s World Newsand NBC’s Nightly Newsreported Sen. Lindsey Graham’s citation of anonymous criticism of Judge Sonia Sotomayor published in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciarywithout noting that Sotomayor’s colleague on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Guido Calabresi, has reportedly said of criticism of Sotomayor’s temperament on the bench, “It was sexist, plain and simple.” Additionally, neither ABC nor NBC noted that, in the words of CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, “[I]f you look at the full entry in this lawyers’ guide, Senator Graham did pick out the most negative comments, and there were a lot of positive comments in there, as well,” or that the American Bar Association rated Sotomayor its highest possible rating, “well qualified.”
Citing these anonymous sources, and cherry-picking the most negative comments about Sotomayor brings into question the credibility and integrity of Graham.
It was pretty taboo, during the presidential campaign last year, to discuss the supposedly bad temper of Sen. John McCain. Now, it seems to be open season on Sotomayor’s temperament (utilizing anonymous sources and not balancing the opinions of the supremely-qualified and well-reviewed judge).
No comments:
Post a Comment