شات مصرية - دردشة مصرية - شات مصري

شات القاهرة ، دردشة القاهرة ، شات دردشة القاهرة ، شات دردشة جامعة القاهرة

شات الاسكندرية - دردشة الاسكندرية - شات دردشة الاسكندرية - شات دردشة جامعة الاسكندرية

شات المنصورة - دردشة المنصورة

شات البحيرة - دردشة البحيرة

شات الفيوم - دردشة الفيوم

شات الغربية - دردشة الغربية

شات الدقهلية - دردشة الدقهلية

شات الاسماعيلية - دردشة الاسماعيلية

شات الجيزة - دردشة الجيزة

شات المنوفية - دردشة المنوفية

شات المنيا - دردشة المنيا

شات البحر الاحمر - دردشة البحر الاحمر

شات القليوبية - دردشة القليوبية

شات الاقصر - دردشة الاقصر

شات الوادى الجديد - دردشة الوادى الجديد

شات الشرقية - دردشة الشرقية

شات السويس - دردشة السويس

شات اسوان - دردشة اسوان

شات اسيوط - دردشة اسيوط

شات بني سويف - دردشة بني سويف

شات بورسعيد - دردشة بورسعيد

شات دمياط - دردشة دمياط

شات كفر الشيخ - دردشة كفر الشيخ

شات مطروح - دردشة مطروح

شات قنا - دردشة قنا

شات جنوب سيناء - دردشة جنوب سيناء

شات شمال سيناء - دردشة شمال سيناء

شات سوهاج - دردشة سوهاج

شات عسل ـ دردشة عسل

شات الشلة ـ دردشة الشلة

شات فلة ـ دردشة فله

شات دردشة ـ دردشة دردشة

شات شبيك لبيك ـ دردشة شبيك لبيك

شات العنابى ـ دردشة العنابى

شات حب شات الحب دردشة حب حب شات حب شات حبي الحب شات شات السودان شات اليمن دردشة بنات السعودية دردشة السعودية شات سعودي دردشة بنات فلسطين دردشة بنات الكويت شات بنات الامارات شات بنات البحرين دردشة قطرية دردشة بنات قطر شات بنات الاردن دردشة عربية شات بنات تونس دردشة الحب شات حبنا

Well, the whole issue of journalism is quite coplex these days, but anonymity cames into play when the story is of human intrest and may be its quite dangerouse to report. take an instance where senior goverment is involved in corruption and the sources close to Him/her reveal the vice, will the sourse be indentified? these a the situations most journalis find themselves. Anonymity is ok in use,but only if explained why the sourse can not be revealed.

Not the whole story should be with anonymous sources at least one is permissible and more than one should be brought to be named in the story. Aftab Maken

The use of faceless sources in stories has always been a subject for heated debate and the problem is that journalists have a responsibility to protect sources. there are sources with alterior motives who want to serve their own purposes and plead for anonymity.The responsibility of ensuring that the source is not a malicious lier lies with the reporter.Many stories exposing corruption and other social ills come from sources who want to serve their own interests but the fact remains that they statements are true. A double crossed criminal might want to expose the deeds of his gang because he was short changed. Though he acted to serve his own interests the fact is that he exposes the deeds of the gang. A lover scorned might seek retribution by exposing her or his lover's ill deeds.Journalism thrives on disgruntled parties.I conclude by saying it is difficult to say it is wrong or right to use faceless sources.That responsibility of ensuring the credibility of the source lies with the reporter.

There is no problem in giving anonymity to sources. But it is important that the reporter chasing any story has enough understanding of the issues involved and can ascertain the veracity of the story from another anonymous and independent source. What this means is novices must keep off what is presented to them as bombshell. This boils down the entire issue to credibility of a reporter. The debate should end here.

Damaru Lal Bhandari editor reportersnepal.com Kathmandu Nepa

it is so simple. one can use anonymous source as long as the reporter knows the motive and is assured of no harm to greater cause. this underlines the importance of experience in journalists. which is to say inexperienced reporters should refrain from chasing such stories. the reason is an experienced journalist will know whether the source is trying to use him or is really serious to have the issue appear in media. i thing the debate should end here. Damaru Lal Bhandari, editor, reportersnepal.com Kathmandu, Nepal

Using anonymous sources does not undermine the credibility of a news report of public interest. Journalists should protect sources and should not get skeptical of using anonymous sources in their reports. Protecting a source is protecting the truth. The journalist should get themselves satisfied with the information and cross check any thing that arouse suspicions. Revealing sources of news in many countries is not without inviting trouble to the source. Mahmood

Yes, indeed, anonymity is relevant for this profession. It is more so for our part of the world - Africa, where democracy does not count when it comes to protecting people (sources). By keeping your source's identity unknown, you are not only keeping him alife and safe, but you are ensuring that they stay on at their place of work or place of living so that there might be more of the information in the future. There are many more reasons as to why anonymity is vital for this professiom.

I MEANT ANONYMOUS SOURCES DO NOT DEFINE THE ESSENCE OF JOURNALISM

I STRONGLY BELIEVE JOURNALISTS SHOULD USE ANONYMOUS SOURCES WHENEVER NECESSARY TO AUTHENTICATE THEIR STORIES. I ALSO BELIEVE THE PROTECTION OF THE SOURCE SHOULD BE OF UTMOST CONCERN TO THE JOURNALIST. IT IS HOWEVER MORE CHALLENGING FOR TELEVISION JOURNALISTS BECAUSE THE AUDIENCE WOULD PREFER TO SEE AND HEAR FROM YOUR SOURCE. BUT WHAT HAS WORKED FOR ME IS EITHER TO DISTORT THE PERSON'S VOICE AND SHADE THE IMAGE AND EXPLAIN TO THE AUDIENCE WHY THIS IS SO;OR WE SHOOT THE PERSON'S BACK WITH ME FACING THE CAMERA. WHILE ANONYMITY WOULD ADD AESTHETICS TO SOME STORIES, I DO NOT THINK ANONYMOUS SOURCES DEFINES THE ESSENCE OF JOURNALISM BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS GO THE EXTRA MILE, TO TELL OUR STORIES THROUGH WILLING AND DARING SOURCES WHO BELIEVE STRONGLY IN OUR MEDIUM TO INFLUENCE CHANGE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. HAVING SAID THAT, WITHOUT ANONYMITY, MANY STORIES WILL REMAIN UNTOLD....................VIVIENNE IRIKEFE. SILVERBIRD TELEVISION, LAGOS, NIGERIA

This issue is very critical for the survival of the news industry. As Journalists, our survival depends on the existance of our news sources, named or unnamed. The unnamed sources are very important in providing hiden information especially for investigative stories. It is up to a reporter to ensure the infor provided is further investigated to unearth even some of it which the annonymous source could not have provided. There is however a danger that a reporter may be tempted to quote annonymous sources unethically but such tricks are always exposed because they are unbalanced. Any media that rushes in publishing stories from annonymous sources without verifying facts risks loosing the credibility from the readers/listeners. Am not lecturing in my contribution but just to say most stories to do with corruption and abuse of office are brought to the fore by annonymous sources. This also applys to investigative wings who heavily depend on annonymous sources for tip offs and have kept the names of the sources a big secrete. Annonymous sources are very important for our survival and lets keep themm

Reuben, Zambia

Oh sure, Journalists should use Sources, anonymous or whatever; but the credibility of such a personality must have been ascertained before the Journalists can use him or her. It is also important to protect the credibility of any Source that does not want to be 'unveiled' so that we will be trusted in case we need them another time. Let's be honest with one another, credible anonymous Sources have been vital over the years to the growth of Journalism across the world. But more importantly, the Reporter should further verify the information provided and ensure a robust investigation of the issue being handled for his or her personal credibility and integrity. Ms. Joke Kujenya, Journalist, The NATION Newspaper; Lagos, Nigeria.

I see no problem in using anonymous sources as long as the story is not based entirely on that anonymous source and it would get difficult balancing the story.

Journalists have to use annonymous sources -in reality they are not anonymous - but their identity for various reasons of ethics and protection of the source cannot always be disclosed. The condition of course is that journalists should not create fictitious sources - that is unethical and dangerous.- Shivaji Sarkar, shivajisarkar@yahoo.com, New Delhi, India

journalists should use annonymous resources to provide the report if the resource permits to reveal the story which is giving from the journalist no matter and it is good for journalist to use from the annonymous resources for making report

The use of anonymous sources is good and welcome when you have a story that you know is good and people might not want their name in print for various reasons. If you trust your source and he doesn’t want his name mentioned, you need to protect it. In my country, for instance, where the freedom of information bill is still an issue, access to official information most time is difficult. The way of getting good stories is to identify officials who have access to reliable information, with whom you can establish a mutual trust. Akinlolu Oluwamuyiwa, Online Editor, The Guardian Lagos, Nigeria

The use of anonymous sources is part of the tradition when journalists and the press play in the role of the fourth pillar of all the unwisdoms. It can not be avoided in cases where the facts or the politics are sensitive, dangerous. But it creates the duty of verifying and checking, enough to avoid charges and to stand behind the published facts, included in the court. Using the right correctly and defending it resolutely is important just now; a number of governements are trying to limit that right, and the Internet has not yet succeeded in doing the work of the traditional printed press.

Penttijuhani Järvinen ex from Finland

Anonymous (or un-named) Sources are critical to investigative journalism. Without them a great many stories would never have been completed because they would be lacking that critical info coming from insiders who, for various reasons, may not be named! Mwenda Njoka, Investigative Journalist, Nairobi, Kenya

i think if you can't get any information except for the anonymous source then journalist should use them but mention in text that info get from anonymous. and specify his status.

Yes. Most scandals are usually exposed by sources who may not wish to be identified. No big deal.

Depending upon the importance of the story journalists can utilise anonymous sources too. But such reports lack authenticity. Giving qoutes and mentioning the sources add credibility to the news items.

C.O.T Azeez Saudi Arabia

Well, the whole issue of journalism is quite coplex these days, but anonymity cames into play when the story is of human intrest and may be its quite dangerouse to report. take an instance where senior goverment is involved in corruption and the sources close to Him/her reveal the vice, will the sourse be indentified? these a the situations most journalis find themselves. Anonymity is ok in use,but only if explained why the sourse can not be revealed. ABDULLAHI MOHAMED BOSASO SOMALIA

Using an annoymous source in a story weakens the credentials of the reporter who tells the story. A journalist has an obligation to protect his source and at the same time maintain crediblity in his story. A week ago I was given a sensitive story to work on but all the sources did not want to be named. People make allegation but are not ready to take the responsbility for what they say. The story invovled a foreign ambassador in Kenya who was implicated in a corruption scandal. I couldnt submit the story because all my sources did not want thier identities revealed. Sources sometime lie and as journalist we have to verify what they say. Journalists are also obliged to tell stories with annoymous sources but we have to be carefull.

Abdilatif Maalim, The star, Kenya.

Indeed, the use of anonymous sources is okay for the profession. Many reliable sources are usually officials whose jobs may be threatened if they put their names to certain information released to the press.As such time (s), the right thing to do is to attribute information gathered from such sources (if it is established they are reliable and substantial evidence is gotten to back up claims) promotes trust and better relationship.

In Nigeria, for instance, where the freedom of information bill is still a contentious issue, access to official information is usually a huge challenge. The alternative means of still keeping the job going is to identify officials who have access to reliable information, with whom mutual trust could be established.

Emeka Anuforo The Guardian, Nigeria

Certaintly yes, journalists should use anonymous sources in the dissemination of news story, but as a trained journalist you should always dubble check any news item that is coming from your source (s) before reporting.

Sources are protected because of so many reasons, one fear of wants life or fear of losing his/her job. not withstanding journalists will always need sources to cultivate his/her his/her work so in short every train journalists will need a source (s).

In third world countries where societal exceptions are the rule and officialdom considers governance their individual preserve, official news sources hardly identify themselves for fear of reprisals. Within such settings of corruption, misgovernance, nepotism, human rights abuses etc fear is the order of the day. And journalists operating under such circumstances cannot do without anonymous sources. Though where fear prevails, truth becomes evasive, the serious journalist would always have to check and cross-check any information given by anonymous sources before using it.

I think ,journalist should protect his source and also should know why his source want to be anonymity Tin Aung Kyaw Myanmar .

There are ways to varify anonymous sources these days but there may not be any other way to get certain information w/o some level of secercy.

According to some essay that Journalism is the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and opinion via a widening spectrum of media. These include newspapers, magazines, radio and television, the internet and even, more recently, the mobile phone. Journalists—be they writers, editors or photographers; broadcast presenters or producers—serve as the chief purveyors of information and opinion in contemporary mass society. According to the BBC journalist, Andrew Marr, "News is what the consensus of journalists determines it to be."

From informal beginnings in the Europe of the 18th century, stimulated by the arrival of mechanized printing—in due course by mass production and in the 20th century by electronic communications technology—today's engines of journalistic enterprise include large corporations with global reach.

The formal status of journalism has varied historically and, still varies vastly, from country to country. The modern state and hierarchical power structures in general have tended to see the unrestricted flow of information as a potential threat, and inimical to their own proper function. Hitler described the Press as a "machine for mass instruction," ideally, a "kind of school for adults." [2] Journalism at its most vigorous, by contrast, tends to be propelled by the implications at least of the attitude epitomized by the Australian journalist John Pilger: "Secretive power loathes journalists who do their job, who push back screens, peer behind façades, lift rocks. Opprobrium from on high is their badge of honour."

Censorship, governmental restriction or even active repression of individual journalists and non-state organs of communication continue to cause, at best, intermittent friction in most countries. Few formal democracies and no authoritarian governments make provision for protection of press freedom implied by the term Fourth Estate.

The rapid rise of Internet technology, in particular the advent of blogging and social networking software, further destabilize journalism as traditionally understood and its practitioners as a distinct professional category. Combined with the increasing leakage of advertising revenue from pre-existing journalistic media into the internet, the full impact of the arrival of the citizen journalist—potentially positive (proliferation having thus far proved more difficult to police) as well as negative—is yet to be seen.

Yes. Anonymity should be used only when sources are in danger. However an excessive use of anonymous sources makes the stories less accurate. If you can justify why you do it, do it. If not, don't.

Of course yes.... anonymity of sources is of great importance when the story has relevance to people. The idea is to tell the world about something which is important and one must also keep the justification aspect in mind.