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
Indian Institute of Journalism and New Media,
January 31, 2011