The ethics involving the use of anonymous sources boil down to two major values: a news medium's duty to inform the public vs. a news medium's duty to do so in a truthful yet transparent manner. It is important to note, that many times as journalists and editors, we will come across vital information that a source will only disclose if they can do so "off the record ". However, the ultimate decision as to whether such information will actually be reported should only be made after discussion with an editor. With that said, there is no "by the book " rule; there are reasons on both sides of the argument regarding when it is appropriate and when it isn't to publish anonymous sources. This memo will provide reasons from both sides, in hopes of assisting the entire team in assessing their sources. .
The main reason for anonymity has been that it helps reveal significant stories that otherwise certainly would not surface. If used with caution and painstaking attention to detail, anonymous sources can be a valuable tool. Contemporary society can be a vastly conservative one, sometimes making it risky for people to make certain statements based on their opinions; even if there is hard-evidence underlying them. In such situations, providing anonymity to someone can help them avoid backlash. Evidently then, doing so can prove to be extremely effective in promoting freedom of speech/expression in a society like ours. Not only does it give the general public a platform to voice their opinions " especially controversial ones " it allows for the rest of society to thoroughly process such newfound information, and develop their own thought process on it. .
In fact, anonymity can almost make for a cathartic effect " meaning it can provide mental relief through the open expression of strong beliefs and emotions. This is especially true when someone comes forth with evidence of child abuse, sexual harassment, or other similar horrendous acts.