I have a point to make about the way Mint covers its stories.
We all know how important a source can be for a news story. Without a credible source, a story is lifeless. Mint, is doing this on a regular basis. They are running stories that do not have the name of the sources. Instead of the name they write something like this: 'he said on condition of anonymity' or, "a person said who is an expert on this topic". Now, how can a reader believe blindly on such sources just because a newspaper says that he is an expert?
On two days recently (29th and 31st Jan, 2011) they ran stories that does not have a single named source. The lead itself has an anonymous speaker and the whole story is based on his quote. How credible can a story be which is full of anonymous sources and what will be the image of a newspaper that runs a series of these kind of stories?
Links to few of the stories that do not have a named source:
Five unnamed sources
Two sources speaking 'on conditions of anonymity'
main point of story from an unnamed source
Avanish Tiwary
Trainee Journalist
Indian Institute of Journalism and New Media,
Bangalore
January 31, 2011
MEDIA JOB OF THE WEEK
2011. THE HOOT. All Rights Reserved.
