Update: After writing this, I felt that the entry had wound up sufficiently long that it was worth having a friend read it before I shared it publicly. So, I published it and sent it to her for notes. However, before I could edit in her comments, a few folks found it and shared the post. Techmeme also linked to it. So, I’m leaving it up unedited in the spirit of fairness. Long live thinking out loud.
Some thoughts on anonymous quotes: (1) readers no longer believe that the unnamed sources actually exist. Their trust is gone. So just stop undermining your credibility by using them, tho we all have. (2) while you are protecting the powerless from the powerful through anonymity, you are also removing them from accountability. What's to stop them from using their invisibility to seek revenge for some perceived slight? Or because they were fired for coming to work high too many days in a row? Or hurt a co-worker? "Powerless" people have motivations too. And should be subject to scrutiny. (3) reporters should ask: Is the anonymous source actually in a position to directly know anything? Low-level employees who are let go often hate their low-level boss who let them go. Fair enough. But do they really understand what is happening several floors and several managerial levels above them? Do they know basic facts, like annual revenue or regulations that affect the business? And when they rage against the "sexist, racist" corporate culture are they really just talking about their former boss? Rather than harvesting sources from Glassdoor, it might be wiser to get documents and on-the-record quotes from people who were in the room when major decisions were made.
Some thoughts on anonymous quotes: (1) readers no longer believe that the unnamed sources actually exist. Their trust is gone. So just stop undermining your credibility by using them, tho we all have. (2) while you are protecting the powerless from the powerful through anonymity, you are also removing them from accountability. What's to stop them from using their invisibility to seek revenge for some perceived slight? Or because they were fired for coming to work high too many days in a row? Or hurt a co-worker? "Powerless" people have motivations too. And should be subject to scrutiny. (3) reporters should ask: Is the anonymous source actually in a position to directly know anything? Low-level employees who are let go often hate their low-level boss who let them go. Fair enough. But do they really understand what is happening several floors and several managerial levels above them? Do they know basic facts, like annual revenue or regulations that affect the business? And when they rage against the "sexist, racist" corporate culture are they really just talking about their former boss? Rather than harvesting sources from Glassdoor, it might be wiser to get documents and on-the-record quotes from people who were in the room when major decisions were made.