I haven't got much return on this in the freelance section, maybe I was supposed to post it here:
Last edited:
"Anonymous" vs. "undisclosed"
- Thread starter The Lonely One
- Start date
- Status
Hold your horses!!! Your post in Freelance was made Today at 04:33 PM, and THIS one was made at 4:41PM. Even presuming someone with a response read your first post immediately and has a response, it may take take them more than eight minutes to
I don't have a clue about your actual question. If you want near-instant responses, you might try the chat. If you want good responses, you might check that the person responding knows what he/she is talking about in reference to the subject (you're studying to be a reporter, you surely know about this, and give each response the appropriate weight.
As always, dumb looks are still free.
Yes, I believe I may have taken the speediness of the internet too far, but in addition am just plain confused at times on where to post things like this (does it even belong in freelance? I'm not a freelance writer...).
So yes, too impatient, you're right.
Also a little lost. :/
Cheers.
So yes, too impatient, you're right.
Also a little lost. :/
Cheers.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,805
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Location
- Caledonia
- Website
- derekpaterson.net
I don't know what the answer is -- but just like a story with nameless characters, "a Los Angeles boy" stays at arm's length. Can't you assign him a name in quotes? So it's obvious this isn't his real name, it's changed to protect the innocent. Better than just a label, no? And no need to mention the a-word.
"My mother punched me in the face," said "David," a 10-year-old who hails from Los Angeles. David found it painful to talk through his swollen lips but showed remarkable courage by giving the interview, etc.
-Derek
"My mother punched me in the face," said "David," a 10-year-old who hails from Los Angeles. David found it painful to talk through his swollen lips but showed remarkable courage by giving the interview, etc.
-Derek
If 'anonymous' is the problem I would go with 'name withheld' or 'identity protected' due to...and then give the reason. If it is an article about say an accident you could use 'an unidentified witness' or even just 'a witness'. Personally in those situations I really don't care of need to the name of the witness or person involved, nor do I need to know why the name is being withheld.
If it is impact story I'd use a pseudonym as dpaterso said
If it is impact story I'd use a pseudonym as dpaterso said
I'm not a journalist, however, I can see your delima. A lot can be subtly implied to an audience by the use of certain words and phrases over others. It's a classic strategy used by spin doctors, politicians, or anyone who has an "agenda".
Consider this statment:
"Prisons are overrun by black men."
versus:
"Statistically, African American men make up a larger proportion of the prison population."
Now, basically the two sentences express the same idea, however in this case, one can easily see the distinction between the two. The first sentence could likely be found written in an article that is meant to promote racism. It is a black and white statment (pardon the pun), and you would not expect to find anything useful in the rest of the text unless you are an aspiring racist. The second sentence, while still a statment, would seem more likely to be found in a tolerant source, and would lead the reader to belive that, by reading further, they may find useful information about the subject.
(Obviously an article aimed at promoting racism could use either statment, but this is a very simple example.)
Now, in your particular situation, I feel you need to make a personal judgment, as a journalist, how you want to present a person who must remain nameless for some reason.
As an educated reader, my impression of the words or phrases you mentioned are this:
Anynomous - I interpret this word as being generally neutral in nature. It indicates to me the specific person wishes to be in no way to be identified with an event or statment. They want to be heard, but do not desire backlash or follow-up because it may affect their life or reputation. In general I find an "anynomous" source to be basically credible. They have no motivation to lie. It also can imply that the writer cannot identify the person due to a basic lack of information about them. Also, in some cases this word is the only approperate one. A person who sends a letter to police that cannot be traced is, in fact, anynomous. To attempt to identify the person in any other way would be be irresponsible in journalism.
Undisclosed identity- This description of a person distinctly implies that their name is being purposfully withheld by some higer power, as though they are involved with the police or in a legal proceeding. This term should be used carefully and only when approperate. It does have a negative connontation, implying that the person is involved with a secret. In this situation, the journalist may or may not know the identity, but regardless, does not have the authority to release it.
Identity is withheld- For me, this gives the impression that the person involved is being protected in their own interest by another agency, prehaps do to their age, sex or the nature of the incident. It does not imply negative police involvment or law procedings, but instead to reveal the identity would be to expose a vulnerable person to some form of suffering. It also implies that the journalist knows the actual identity but chooses not to make it public.
This is the best advice I can give to you, as it is a delicate situation. Be very careful how you word things and be responsible. If you are unsure how to handle wording a situation. Spend some time considering it...prehaps ask someone you trust for their opinion. Your entire reputation could be at risk.
Not to push my own agenda here, but these types of situations are very obvious to me with certain news agencies. I refuse to watch FOX News. I find their statments about events to be very biased, inflamitory, sensational and quite often outright lies. They are masters of manipulating words to further their agenda. FOX's complete disregard for good journalism has caused me to only trust NPR and PBS for my news and to an extent, BBC. And as everybody knows, anyone associated with FOX News has virtually ended their career should they try to go somewhere else.
This may have gone way beyond the scope of your question, but it is worth considering.
Consider this statment:
"Prisons are overrun by black men."
versus:
"Statistically, African American men make up a larger proportion of the prison population."
Now, basically the two sentences express the same idea, however in this case, one can easily see the distinction between the two. The first sentence could likely be found written in an article that is meant to promote racism. It is a black and white statment (pardon the pun), and you would not expect to find anything useful in the rest of the text unless you are an aspiring racist. The second sentence, while still a statment, would seem more likely to be found in a tolerant source, and would lead the reader to belive that, by reading further, they may find useful information about the subject.
(Obviously an article aimed at promoting racism could use either statment, but this is a very simple example.)
Now, in your particular situation, I feel you need to make a personal judgment, as a journalist, how you want to present a person who must remain nameless for some reason.
As an educated reader, my impression of the words or phrases you mentioned are this:
Anynomous - I interpret this word as being generally neutral in nature. It indicates to me the specific person wishes to be in no way to be identified with an event or statment. They want to be heard, but do not desire backlash or follow-up because it may affect their life or reputation. In general I find an "anynomous" source to be basically credible. They have no motivation to lie. It also can imply that the writer cannot identify the person due to a basic lack of information about them. Also, in some cases this word is the only approperate one. A person who sends a letter to police that cannot be traced is, in fact, anynomous. To attempt to identify the person in any other way would be be irresponsible in journalism.
Undisclosed identity- This description of a person distinctly implies that their name is being purposfully withheld by some higer power, as though they are involved with the police or in a legal proceeding. This term should be used carefully and only when approperate. It does have a negative connontation, implying that the person is involved with a secret. In this situation, the journalist may or may not know the identity, but regardless, does not have the authority to release it.
Identity is withheld- For me, this gives the impression that the person involved is being protected in their own interest by another agency, prehaps do to their age, sex or the nature of the incident. It does not imply negative police involvment or law procedings, but instead to reveal the identity would be to expose a vulnerable person to some form of suffering. It also implies that the journalist knows the actual identity but chooses not to make it public.
This is the best advice I can give to you, as it is a delicate situation. Be very careful how you word things and be responsible. If you are unsure how to handle wording a situation. Spend some time considering it...prehaps ask someone you trust for their opinion. Your entire reputation could be at risk.
Not to push my own agenda here, but these types of situations are very obvious to me with certain news agencies. I refuse to watch FOX News. I find their statments about events to be very biased, inflamitory, sensational and quite often outright lies. They are masters of manipulating words to further their agenda. FOX's complete disregard for good journalism has caused me to only trust NPR and PBS for my news and to an extent, BBC. And as everybody knows, anyone associated with FOX News has virtually ended their career should they try to go somewhere else.
This may have gone way beyond the scope of your question, but it is worth considering.
In my newspaper, I've seen: "It hurt so bad," said 10-year-old David, who declined to give his last name.
- Status