"The public sees the growing use of unidentified sources as a basic fairness issue. The public is particularly upset when it thinks the press is providing cover so someone can make an anonymous personal attack on another individual" (Haiman 21).
After reading the next section of Haiman, I found the quote above to be extremely important to the Newswriting world. I think that it is essential for the news reporter to be careful when citing someone if they say they do not want to be. This would be considered an unidentified source, but is it always good?
I think that unidentified sources are good for local stories, but how does it work when it comes to political and national stories. Here is an example case: What if the Vice President said a statement that the paper named as being an unidentified source. What if that source was used to make the opposing political party look bad? No one would have known that the V.P said that quote because it was unidentified, but the opposing team or political party would probably know.
I think that when it comes to politics, then the public knows who says what because of how widespread the topics are and how much coverage they receive. Is the paper using unidentified sources as a means of attacking another person of even another news paper company?
So, do you think that the paper uses unidentified sources in order to make the public read their papers? Is it a form of bias that people do not understand and simply enjoy reading about? Finally, could the unidentified sources be a way of attacking a specific audience - hint: news coverage?
Click here for the course web page devoted to Haiman.