Journalists are frequently criticised for inaccuracy. I have already attempted to defend us against these charges in other entries on this blog, but two recent experiences at work have propelled me take up the pixel in our defence yet again.

Society in general and PR in particular are hypocritical to accuse of us inaccuracy when they do the following:
1. Suggest mixing up the names of school children in photographs
2. Try to get away with not giving a name to be quoted in reference to a story, respectively.

These are two quite different circumstances, but as I see it, they both hinge on two important things: accountability of and trust in journalism.

The school that suggested we mix up the names of children in our photo captions had as their argument “oooh paedophiles!”. I kid you not. Again, I have ranted against our society’s obsession with the paedophile on the loose here and I have yet to hear of a child kidnapped by a paedophile who identified them from a newspaper photograph. If it happens, maybe I’ll eat my words, but the odds are significantly stacked against it. The school suggested we use just first names, but even if said mythical newspaper-scouring paedophile did hang around outside a school hoping to abduct a child, they are hardly likely to call out: “Hey Jackie Evans! I’ve got some sweets you’ll really like!” First name would be enough, if this were ever to happen.

But I digress. The real problem this entry is meant to deal with is the suggestion that we mix up the names. To be fair, the person suggesting it has not had any training in journalism and may not be aware of the implications, but if we start mis-labelling people, why should readers trust us to be accurate with anything else? Not only is it insulting to the people who we mis-name; in other situations, it could be potentially libellous. Getting names wrong is also sloppy, unprofessional and does your reputation no favours. We’re hardly likely to start doing it on purpose. Just, no.

The attempt by the PR rep to get me to quote them only as “spokesperson” failed, because they’d given me their name in an earlier phone call. My senior colleague forbade me from doing so and said there was no way we could attribute quotes anonymously. And I think she was right. If we don’t have a name, we could easily have just made up what was said. And if we’ve made up a name, at least if gives people something to investigate, they can see if this person exists.

Anonymous sources can seriously undermine the credibility of journalism. People sheltering behind anonymity can talk all kinds of crap without being accountable and journalists can end up writing inaccurate pieces because of it. Anonymity may occasionally have its place in investigative reporting, but not when getting a quote off a PR. Giving a name shows we’ve put the work in to make the story balanced, we’ve found someone legitimate to comment. If journalism is to be trusted, that’s how it has to be. And the same goes for naming children in photos.