Anonymity is a perplexing request faced every now and then by The Lamron.
Often, it is an issue reporters face when trying to get information from sources who do not wish to be named. We also occasionally receive submissions and tips decrying everything from bad food to alleged trysts between faculty.
These requests are almost always made in earnest and with good, reasonable intentions; sources and writers do not wish to tarnish their names and reputations or to personally offend or hurt others.
The problem with anonymity is that it diminishes the integrity and accuracy of the message being conveyed, as well as the medium – in this case, The Lamron – through which it is conveyed.
Presenting information anonymously or under a misnomer or blanket group name is, first of all, misleading. None of these options accurately reflect the voice composing the message. The transmission of the message is also compromised in anonymity. Readers discern a statement clearly marked “from English department chair Richard Finkelstein” as much more reliable and trustworthy than one ambiguously designated as “from a concerned faculty member.” The message itself loses its credibility and the mysterious author is viewed skeptically for presenting a statement in such a manner.
There are, of course, cases and mediums in which anonymity can be appropriate and even beneficial. Lamron articles have featured anonymous quotations in the past, and from what I can tell, these were used properly; they were regarding subjects which might have jeopardized the sources’ well being, and the content was required for presenting a full, balanced and complete report.
When it comes to anonymous submissions, sometimes an unnamed voice needs to be expressed. The Lamron simply isn’t the place for that. We value too dearly the transparency and full disclosure of information practiced by upstanding journalists.