It’s SOP in journalism to name everyone who is featured in an article. Reason is to show readers that this isn’t just some fake or imagined person thrown up by the reporter.
A name usually comes with age and occupation as well to further establish that the person is bona fide and to give readers a clue about where the person is coming from particularly when he or she gives his views. A 50 year old CEO’s view is likely to be different from a 21 year old who’s still studying. So it’s not about kaypohness or ageism etc.
If the person is interviewed because of his expertise or authority, then the designation is given. No need to give age although sometimes it is useful to give years of experience. They can’t simply be tagged as observers and industry sources. Even ‘academic’ is not good enough because there is a great difference between a university tutor pursuing post-grad studies and a full-fledged tenured professor.
A person who is named will be more careful about what he said and also shows that he is willing to stand behind his words. It shows accountability. The flip side occurs too – people give views that are so bland and safe that it’s not even worth reporting. Which is what we’re reading these days. Journalists have to try harder.
In Singapore, people say they don’t want to be named because of ‘repercussions’ – real or imagined. It is easy enough to shoot mouth off behind a fake name. It might also be more exciting to read. So is fiction.
Journalists should not feed this culture of anonymity but help build up a mature citizenry which is as transparent about themselves as they want others to be. In fact, if some people are named, and some not, then readers will wonder what sort of pressure the journalist is under, or what sort of favour is being done for some people but not others. Dispel this suspicion by sticking to SOP.
It is for journalists to persuade interviewees to give names – or find another interviewee who is willing to be named especially if the subject is so innocuous. For example, what do you mean a housewife who declined to be named? Too difficult to find a housewife who is willing to be named?
Unless the person is the only one with the info or with the view, then you have no choice but to succumb to anonymity . Even so, remember that if the person is so ‘rare’, it is likely that some people will know who he is anyway. So tell the person that.
People, however, can’t be named if the court tells you that you can’t. This applies to victims of sex abuse and to children. Usually this covers not naming relatives or schools or where the person works. The accused gets a pass so to speak because the victims need protection.
Of course, this protective shield can be taken too far, in the name of ‘privacy’ and a whole host of ‘personal’ reasons. Like being worried about doxxing or being blamed or simply not wanting neighbours to gossip or colleagues to know. Methinks this is increasingly common, and journalists aren’t holding the line on this. Media should resist this trend and not take the easy way out and say okay to not being named. And readers turn newsmakers must remember that their views are worth more when they are attached to their names.
One more thing: I don’t understand why some are against naming people who died in criminal cases or tragic circumstances – to help soothe the family and stop kaypohs from prying? I think the dead deserve a name, which is the simplest record of their life. Respect for the dead matters more than living people’s feelings. But that’s just me.
Bertha Harian 