Газеты должны печатать точные факты: каждый читатель должен иметь возможность проверить их самостоятельно. Если газета написала, что Марк Твен умер, читатель обращается к Марку Твену, узнает, что он жив, и задается вопросом, а кто все-таки умер.

According to some essay that Journalism is the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and opinion via a widening spectrum of media. These include newspapers, magazines, radio and television, the internet and even, more recently, the mobile phone. Journalists—be they writers, editors or photographers; broadcast presenters or producers—serve as the chief purveyors of information and opinion in contemporary mass society. According to the BBC journalist, Andrew Marr, "News is what the consensus of journalists determines it to be."

From informal beginnings in the Europe of the 18th century, stimulated by the arrival of mechanized printing—in due course by mass production and in the 20th century by electronic communications technology—today's engines of journalistic enterprise include large corporations with global reach.

The formal status of journalism has varied historically and, still varies vastly, from country to country. The modern state and hierarchical power structures in general have tended to see the unrestricted flow of information as a potential threat, and inimical to their own proper function. Hitler described the Press as a "machine for mass instruction," ideally, a "kind of school for adults." [2] Journalism at its most vigorous, by contrast, tends to be propelled by the implications at least of the attitude epitomized by the Australian journalist John Pilger: "Secretive power loathes journalists who do their job, who push back screens, peer behind façades, lift rocks. Opprobrium from on high is their badge of honour."

Censorship, governmental restriction or even active repression of individual journalists and non-state organs of communication continue to cause, at best, intermittent friction in most countries. Few formal democracies and no authoritarian governments make provision for protection of press freedom implied by the term Fourth Estate.

The rapid rise of Internet technology, in particular the advent of blogging and social networking software, further destabilize journalism as traditionally understood and its practitioners as a distinct professional category. Combined with the increasing leakage of advertising revenue from pre-existing journalistic media into the internet, the full impact of the arrival of the citizen journalist—potentially positive (proliferation having thus far proved more difficult to police) as well as negative—is yet to be seen.

There are ways to varify anonymous sources these days but there may not be any other way to get certain information w/o some level of secercy.

In third world countries where societal exceptions are the rule and officialdom considers governance their individual preserve, official news sources hardly identify themselves for fear of reprisals. Within such settings of corruption, misgovernance, nepotism, human rights abuses etc fear is the order of the day. And journalists operating under such circumstances cannot do without anonymous sources. Though where fear prevails, truth becomes evasive, the serious journalist would always have to check and cross-check any information given by anonymous sources before using it.

بإمكان الصحفي استخدام المصادر المجهولة إذا طلب منه ذلك من قبل المصدر خاصة اذا تعرض الاخير لتهديد او ما شابه. كما ان على الصحفي قبل ان ينشر خبره أن يتأكد من مصدر آخر.

Using an annoymous source in a story weakens the credentials of the reporter who tells the story. A journalist has an obligation to protect his source and at the same time maintain crediblity in his story.
A week ago I was given a sensitive story to work on but all the sources did not want to be named. People make allegation but are not ready to take the responsbility for what they say. The story invovled a foreign ambassador in Kenya who was implicated in a corruption scandal.
I couldnt submit the story because all my sources did not want thier identities revealed. Sources sometime lie and as journalist we have to verify what they say.
Journalists are also obliged to tell stories with annoymous sources but we have to be carefull.

Abdilatif Maalim,
The star,
Kenya.

Considero que en muchas ocasiones la información suministrada por las fuentes anónimas es de importancia para el desarrollo de la investigación respectiva, pero el periodista debe cotejar esa información y entregarla al público con el respaldo documental y contextual necesario que garantice la veracidad de la información y su credibilidad en las audiencias.

Yes. Most scandals are usually exposed by sources who may not wish to be identified. No big deal.

i think if you can't get any information except for the anonymous source then journalist should use them but mention in text that info get from anonymous. and specify his status.

The use of anonymous sources is good and welcome when you have a story that you know is good and people might not want their name in print for various reasons. If you trust your source and he doesn’t want his name mentioned, you need to protect it.
In my country, for instance, where the freedom of information bill is still an issue, access to official information most time is difficult. The way of getting good stories is to identify officials who have access to reliable information, with whom you can establish a mutual trust.
Akinlolu Oluwamuyiwa,
Online Editor, The Guardian
Lagos, Nigeria

I see no problem in using anonymous sources as long as the story is not based entirely on that anonymous source and it would get difficult balancing the story.

Oh sure, Journalists should use Sources, anonymous or whatever; but the credibility of such a personality must have been ascertained before the Journalists can use him or her. It is also important to protect the credibility of any Source that does not want to be 'unveiled' so that we will be trusted in case we need them another time. Let's be honest with one another, credible anonymous Sources have been vital over the years to the growth of Journalism across the world. But more importantly, the Reporter should further verify the information provided and ensure a robust investigation of the issue being handled for his or her personal credibility and integrity. Ms. Joke Kujenya, Journalist, The NATION Newspaper; Lagos, Nigeria.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE JOURNALISTS SHOULD USE ANONYMOUS SOURCES WHENEVER NECESSARY TO AUTHENTICATE THEIR STORIES. I ALSO BELIEVE THE PROTECTION OF THE SOURCE SHOULD BE OF UTMOST CONCERN TO THE JOURNALIST. IT IS HOWEVER MORE CHALLENGING FOR TELEVISION JOURNALISTS BECAUSE THE AUDIENCE WOULD PREFER TO SEE AND HEAR FROM YOUR SOURCE. BUT WHAT HAS WORKED FOR ME IS EITHER TO DISTORT THE PERSON'S VOICE AND SHADE THE IMAGE AND EXPLAIN TO THE AUDIENCE WHY THIS IS SO;OR WE SHOOT THE PERSON'S BACK WITH ME FACING THE CAMERA.
WHILE ANONYMITY WOULD ADD AESTHETICS TO SOME STORIES, I DO NOT THINK ANONYMOUS SOURCES DEFINES THE ESSENCE OF JOURNALISM BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS GO THE EXTRA MILE, TO TELL OUR STORIES THROUGH WILLING AND DARING SOURCES WHO BELIEVE STRONGLY IN OUR MEDIUM TO INFLUENCE CHANGE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. HAVING SAID THAT, WITHOUT ANONYMITY, MANY STORIES WILL REMAIN UNTOLD....................VIVIENNE IRIKEFE. SILVERBIRD TELEVISION, LAGOS, NIGERIA

vivienne Irikefe

Using anonymous sources does not undermine the credibility of a news report of public interest. Journalists should protect sources and should not get skeptical of using anonymous sources in their reports. Protecting a source is protecting the truth. The journalist should get themselves satisfied with the information and cross check any thing that arouse suspicions. Revealing sources of news in many countries is not without inviting trouble to the source.
Mahmood

it is so simple. one can use anonymous source as long as the reporter knows the motive and is assured of no harm to greater cause. this underlines the importance of experience in journalists. which is to say inexperienced reporters should refrain from chasing such stories. the reason is an experienced journalist will know whether the source is trying to use him or is really serious to have the issue appear in media. i thing the debate should end here.
Damaru Lal Bhandari, editor, reportersnepal.com
Kathmandu, Nepal

i think it is not good idea because of some reason but the main reason is that :if the sources not be clear also all news be unclear

The use of faceless sources in stories has always been a subject for heated debate and the problem is that journalists have a responsibility to protect sources. there are sources with alterior motives who want to serve their own purposes and plead for anonymity.The responsibility of ensuring that the source is not a malicious lier lies with the reporter.Many stories exposing corruption and other social ills come from sources who want to serve their own interests but the fact remains that they statements are true. A double crossed criminal might want to expose the deeds of his gang because he was short changed. Though he acted to serve his own interests the fact is that he exposes the deeds of the gang.
A lover scorned might seek retribution by exposing her or his lover's ill deeds.Journalism thrives on disgruntled parties.I conclude by saying it is difficult to say it is wrong or right to use faceless sources.That responsibility of ensuring the credibility of the source lies with the reporter.

Not the whole story should be with anonymous sources at least one is permissible and more than one should be brought to be named in the story.
Aftab Maken

ا- یجب علیة التاکد من المعلومات بشکل ادق قل الاشاره الی المصدر المجهول وذالک یعطی الصحفی حافز الامان لتلافی عاقبه امور الخبر
2-نعم نستطیع استخدام عباره (رفض الکشف عن هویته) وبذالک ننشر الخبر وعلی الذمة
3-انا اقول لایوجد خبر سری الیوم ولایوجد مصدر سری 100% فالخبر السری الیوم صار فی متناول الجمیع واقول یوجد ناشر جریئ لایخاف عواقب الامروتوجد مسیلة اعلامیة لاتخاف نشر الخبر وبالتاکید سیاستها اهم

Yes, indeed, anonymity is relevant for this profession. It is more so for our part of the world - Africa, where democracy does not count when it comes to protecting people (sources).
By keeping your source's identity unknown, you are not only keeping him alife and safe, but you are ensuring that they stay on at their place of work or place of living so that there might be more of the information in the future.
There are many more reasons as to why anonymity is vital for this professiom.