Editors' Note

We finish October wearing masks. Cloaked in cloaks, hair under wigs, eyes canopied by false lashes. Costumed masses will parade Franklin Street, unrecognizable. On Halloween, we experience the thrill of anonymity.

Anonymity is a frequent point of discussion in our lives as journalists. In our first Chronicle training sessions, our editors warned us to be wary of anonymous sources. We could quote them strictly in rare instances.

“Only if there is no other way you can report the story.”

“Revealing their identities has to put them in serious jeopardy.”

“Why won’t they speak on the record?”

The anonymous source escapes accountability for his actions, for her words. Estranged from their names, they have freedom; the responsibility they shed transfers to you. False statements they make become yours.

But, as our editors also told us, anonymous sources are necessary. In fact, you may find that your most important interviews are with people you cannot name in your finished piece. Those who are unburdened by attribution speak most freely. Through anonymous sources, we build background for our stories. We learn what questions to ask the people who will speak on the record. Anonymous sources are a starting point.

This is not the case for all of types of today’s media. For Fact Checker—a frequent commenter on articles in The Chronicle and Towerview and the author of a blog that criticizes Duke’s administration—anonymous informers are often the first and last source. This situation has more layers. Fact Checker himself is relatively anonymous under his moniker. In this issue, Taylor Doherty will introduce him to you as Ed Rickards.