quarta-feira, 1 de junho de 2005

Carta aos leitores (da Newsweek a propósito de novas linhas orientadoras sobre fontes anónimas)

[…] «In the weeks to come we will be reviewing ways to improve our news-gathering processes overall. But after consultations with the editors, we are taking the following steps now:
«We will raise the standards for the use of anonymous sources throughout the magazine. Historically, unnamed sources have helped to break or advance stories of great international importance, but overuse can lead to distrust among readers and carelessness among journalists. As always, the burden of proof should lie with the reporters and their editors to show why a promise of anonymity serves the reader. From now on, only the editor or the managing editor, or other top editors they specifically appoint, will have the authority to sign off on the use of an anonymous source.
«We will step up our commitment to help the reader understand the nature of a confidential source’s access to information often are now, the name and position of such a source will be shared upon request with a designated top editor. Our goal is to ensure that we have properly assessed, on a confidential basis, the source’s credibility and motives before publishing and to make sure that we characterize the source appropriately. The cryptic phrase “sources said” will never again be the sale attribution for a story in NEWSWEEK.
«When information provided by a source wishing to remain anonymous is essential to a sensitive story-alleging misconduct or reflecting a highly contentious point of view, for example - we pledge a renewed effort to seek a second independent source or other corroborating evidence. When the pursuit of the public interest requires the use of a single confidential source in such a story, we will attempt to provide the comment and the context to the subject of the story in advance of publication for confirmation, denial or correction. Tacit afirmatlon, by anyone, no matter how highly placed or apparently knowledgeable, will not qualify as a secondary source. […]»

Richard M. Smith - Chairman and Editor-in-Chief
(Publicado na Newsweek de 30-5-05)

Sem comentários: