“The president feels good about this decision, sources say.” “They have come to their divorce amicably, close sources say.” “The king is taking time off to recover, sources say.” Sources say this and sources say that.

Often in television and media, many assertions are made with the help of sources close to those at the center of it all. But, how much can these unnamed sources really be trusted? When hiding behind the veil of anonymity, sources are free to speak without many negative repercussions. But this practice is not as few and far between as maybe we’d like to believe, rather, it’s one of the most common practices in mainstream journalism. By allowing sources to maintain their anonymity, journalists continuously subject their work to intense scrutiny, especially with issues of credibility.

Now, you may ask, why? Journalists are required to base their articles on evidence and develop new stories, but what if the people in the position to provide evidence don’t want to be named? In that case, you get unnamed sources and a whole heaping pile of trust issues the public has with the media. So why do these journalists continue to secure the identity of their sources?

The answer is quite simple — journalists rarely have one-off sources. Journalists generally stick to a specific field in which they want to specialize in, writing about and developing contacts in said field. So when journalists publish information from a specific source all the time, that source is bound to be recognized. By revealing the identity of that source, the personal ramifications may end that line of information for the journalist.

It is seen as ethical in professional journalism to not name a source without their permission. But, what happens when the threat of personal consequences is diminished and sources can unabashedly speak on issues that they may not even have the facts to speak on? Well, then you get a juicy story built on a foundation as strong as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. By diminishing the personal weight that claims carry in the lives of sources, we open up a box we can’t close and travel down a path of no return, a path of which sources can say whatever they feel necessary and never own up to it.

There are instances, however, in which not naming a source is a better rule of thumb. If by disclosing the information, a source is threatened to lose their employment, their political freedom or their life, then anonymity is the best route of action. However, these circumstances do not represent the majority of anonymous sources and their rationale for maintaining their hidden identity. If a source cannot handle the personal or public pushback the disclosure of information will generate and they do not fit in the circumstances mentioned earlier, journalists should strive to attribute their sources and establish higher credibility and accountability to their evidence.

In a world of constant news and media bombardment from hundreds of opinionated outlets, it can be hard to piece together a story especially if the sources at the heart of it refuse to be named. Putting a name to a source, listing their position and including their authority on the subject makes for an integrious article — one that cannot be disputed, that readers can trust and use to inform themselves, unworried of its origins. Despite the ethicality of anonymous sources, journalists should never consume information that they cannot publish with attribution unless absolutely necessary.

The days of rampant anonymous sources are not yet behind us though. With the New York Times and the Washington Post, pioneers in their field, succumbing to the pervasiveness of using unnamed sources we can only expect others to do the same. Without holding these news outlets accountable, we can never guarantee raw and frank journalism to the public, which we are very much entitled to.

Journalism with integrity and truth should be the ethical standard to which we hold our free press too, not deluded notions of morality we hide our sources behind. As William Shakespeare once said, “no legacy is so rich as honesty.”

Jai Kaur is a freshman double-majoring in political science and economics.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.