I’ll put my media critic’s hat on for a moment when discussing this story in the Chicago Tribune on the Critical Mass downtown bicycle protests.
A groom was driving down Michigan Avenue to his wedding rehearsal dinner on a Friday night this past summer when he found himself engulfed by a sea of bicycles.
Angry that he would be made late, he started yelling, only to have half a dozen cyclists surround his car and verbally assault him for traveling by four wheels.
The groom had stumbled upon Critical Mass, the monthly event that sees up to 3,000 bikers riding through Chicago’s streets, running lights and blocking traffic, all with a somewhat reluctant police escort.
“Riding your bike is fine, but taking over the streets like that is out of control,” said the driver, who asked that his name not be used. “I can’t believe the police allow it to happen.”
Really? Leading off a story with an anonymous quote? You can’t find a similar anecdote on the record, or convince the guy to give his name?
This is something that drove me nuts as a newspaper editor. Easy anonymity creates a number of problems. If it’s so easily granted, why would anyone ever want to give his or her name to a reporter? And for readers: Why would they believe a thing this source has to say?
An officer and another motorist are also sort of haphazardly quoted anonymously later in the story (I went back and skimmed the rest of it while writing this). Big shock. Maybe it’s just me, and most readers don’t care. But I wonder.
Point taken, and I mostly agree, but I do believe there are also times when anonymity is warranted. For example, just yesterday I was interviewed by a local reporter when I took part in the annual “Walk to School Day” with my son. I was happy to explain why I felt it was important to do, why we walk most days of the week, etc. But, for safety reasons for my young son, I didn’t want our last names used. For one, I don’t want all newspaper readers in my community knowing the name of a young child who walks to school most days. For another, as a young child I had my name in the paper for winning a contest, and later that evening received an interesting phone call from a gentleman who saw my picture and name in the paper and wanted me to describe to him what I looked like without clothes.
So, I understand where you’re coming from, and with this example I might agree, but sometimes the person being interviewed is requesting anonymity because that person has safety concerns. Maybe this groom was concerned that his anger would push some of the more militant bikers in his community to vandalize his car…(?)
I don’t necessarily disagree in the case you’re talking about, but in the story I cited, the anecdote loses all meaning for me because it’s anonymous. At least if it’s attached to a real person, it has some credibility.
You are well within your rights to not give your name (or that of your child), but if I’m a reporter, photographer or editor, I want names, because names are of value to the reader. So if a reporter/photog/editor has to work that much harder to find someone happy to give his or her name, so be it.
Let’s take a look back at the events that transpired in the excerpt above.
1. A guy was caught in the Critical Mass trafic.
2. Has was worried about being late for a wedding rehersal…and even happened to be the “groom”. What great odds by this investiagative repoerter to find this guy.
3. The “groom” who has already stated that he was worried about being late, but now with no regard for being late, takes the time to grant an interview to a reporter, who just happened to be standing alongside the route that the Critical Mass ride was going to take place. Again what are the odds?
4. The guy provides a quote slanted exactly the way the rest of the article is written by the reporter.
5. Shocker of all shockers, the guy asks not to be named. Really? Are the bikers going to hunt him down and vandalize his car while he is on his honeymoon?
I actually read this article in the paper the other day and the first thing I thought was the story about the groom was made up by the reporter to back their case. What better individual than a groom on the way to his nuptials to garner some support for an opinion. Now could this all have been true, I’m sure it could have been, but not having a named source makes it ring hollow. Was this the only person seriosuly inconvenienced by the throng of people on bikes? It would almost appear that way, but we will never know as the source asked not to be named.
Anonymous sources may have their place, but it has become an easy way out for many. How many times have unnamed sources been shown to be wrong? I would guess the percentage is higher than named sources. Maybe Cookie can give us an idea based on his journalistic experience.
It is interesting that in our legal system you have a right to face your accuser,or something along those lines. Yet, you can anonymously say something in print that tries and convicts the perception of someone and never have to face the music. The reporter can hide behind their anonymous source and the public image destruction caused by a false source can be nearly as bad as a court of law.
As for Andrew getting named in a paper for winning something and getting tracked down by a pervert of soem sort, that is unfortunate. What was the other option there, the newspaper reporting that a child won a contest? I understand wanting to protect your children in your current example, as any good parent should, and I understand your rationale. There are however, mnay cases that don’t require that safety concern.
Christian: I don’t disagree with your reasons to be annoyed *in general*, but not in this case. I was just making the case that some interviewees might be slightly more paranoid than others about the wackos out there. The groom was already “verbally assaulted” (in the words of the news report) for his objections — I can understand his hesitancy to give his name. Especially if part of that “verbal assault” included threats against him or his car.
Could the reporter have found another source willing to be named? Probably, and maybe he should’ve tried harder than he did. However, for me as a newspaper reader outside of the profession, the anonimity in this story takes little away from the report.
Kevin: You make good points about anonymous accusers, and that is one of my objections to those stupid “call-in-and-leave-an-anonymous-comment” columns that are so popular in newspapers today. But, in a report on someone being “verbally assaulted” I think the anonymity of the person assaulted is not unwarranted.
Re my example: no, the newspaper shouldn’t have reported that “a child” won the contest, but given the experience I had, I can sympathize with someone who hesitates before giving their full name to a newspaper reporting on his angry reaction to a mob and the “verbal assault” that happened to him afterward. You ask if the bikers are going to hunt him down and vandalize his car while he is on his honeymoon — is it unreasonable to assume that it could happen if his name is out there?
Kevin, I got the impression that the “groom” interview came well after the actual Critical Mass protest (but it’s not entirely clear).
Andy, OK, let’s say that the guy doesn’t want to use his name, for whatever reason. Then what makes, as Kevin points out, an already too-pat anecdote like that remotely legitimate? There’s already zero evidence: no police report or another witness or anything. So we’re supposed to take the word of an anonymous dude that this happened?
If he gives his name, then at least he’s putting himself out there in terms of standing behind what he’s said.
Also, the story leads off with this anecdote and it establishes a central premise of the story. So it should meet an even higher standard than, let’s say, a paraphrased anecdote tucked in later on in the story.
Plus (sorry for droning on) I love the notion that the bicyclists saw fit to “verbally assault him for traveling by four wheels.” Er, is that why? Or was it because he was, I don’t know, yelling at them?
Christian,
Boy are you cynical! I always knew Kevin was, but this is a surprise!
Look, I understand what you’re saying — I really do. There’s no proof that this actually happened. And, it really would’ve been better for the journalist to get someone to go on the record. However, there is also no proof that it DIDN’T happen. Maybe it is because I’m naive about the world of journalism, but I trust that if something’s published in an outlet like the Tribune, then I trust the facts to be accurate. You have more experience in the world of journalists than I do (hence the cynicism…?), so maybe I shouldn’t have that trust. But, I DO see a reason the groom would want to remain anonymous, and I prefer to believe the journalist is respecting the wishes of his interviewee than believe this is fabricated. I guess that comes from trusting in “innocent until proven guilty” — in this case, the burden of proof hasn’t been met in my book.
“Plus (sorry for droning on) I love the notion that the bicyclists saw fit to ‘verbally assault him for traveling by four wheels.’ Er, is that why? Or was it because he was, I don’t know, yelling at them?”
You’re probably right — I’d buy that. But, that’s one more reason to believe this anecdote might have actually happened. If the journalist was making this story up, would he have his protagonist acting rudely to begin with, or would he have those mean, nasty bikers picking on someone who is completely innocent and just happens to be driving a car in the middle of their bikefest? The fact that the groom acted rudely to begin with gives a bit of credibility to the story in my book…
Is this horse dead yet, or should we keep on swingin’?
Think of it this way: The reason you tend to believe something that’s on the Chi Tribune site is because (I’d like to think) journalists have traditionally held themselves to a higher standard than say, you and me and Kevin swapping stories around the proverbial water cooler.
It’s not that I don’t believe John Doe’s story because I’m a cynic. It’s that in order for John Doe’s story to rise to the level of something, as a professional journalist, I’d want to include in a news story, I would require — at minimum — a name in order to give it a bit of legitimacy.
Anonymity should be reserved for the most rare of occasions: whistleblowers, witnesses to crimes, victims. When a legit news outlet grants anonymity, a detailed explanation should follow. This instance doesn’t pass any of those tests.
I vote that we keep swinging. What else is there to do, seeing as I just got home from the office.
I don’t believe the story because I am a cynic. It is just too convenient. If you read the entire article the author does not attribute a single quote against the Critical Mass ride to anyone. No pedestrians, no police officiers, no citizens. The complete lack of atrributed sources is now very obvious and seems odd.
I think Cookmie summed it up the best in his last paragraph in the previous post. Anonymity should be reserved for truly necessary occassions of which I would consider Andrew’s desire not to have his childs name in for safety reasons to be a good reason.
As for believing everything in the Tribune or other major source, I offer Jayson Blair and Mitch Albom as exhibits. I doubt he is a truly isolated case At least with sources, things can be fact checked if someone desires.