By Mike Hiestand
The use of pseudonyms – fictitious names – in news reporting is a fairly common, if sometimes controversial, practice.
While there are many reasons for hiding or disguising the identify of a subject, one of the most common is to avoid legal problems. In order for a person to successfully claim that they have been defamed or that private facts about them have been unlawfully revealed in a news story, that person must first show that they were identified. A story that successfully disguises or hides the identity of its subjects is generally safe to report as far as the law is concerned.
Still, while the practice can serve a useful function, there are serious ethical and legal pitfalls that can arise. Indeed, some news organizations – citing the potential for abuse – flatly prohibit their use.
The use of pseudonyms is most when a story involves a highly sensitive topic. For example, high school papers have frequently used pseudonyms to cover stories involving substance abuse or mental illness. No amount of describing treatment programs or providing a generic list of symptoms can beat actually talking to a student who has suffered the terrible pain of depression or who is being treated for alcoholism. Their stories are real, and their often dramatic and wrenching experiences can bring the issue to life. While a subject may want to help their classmates or colleagues by sharing their experience, they are often unwilling to disclose their identity, preferring to handle their situation privately. Still, in such cases, journalists can usually talk to other sources (health care workers, close family members) or obtain documentation to verify the accuracy of the story.
At other times, pseudonyms are used to report a story whose facts would be difficult or impossible to confirm. If names were used the story would put the publication at serious risk for a libel lawsuit. For example, a student paper recently reported on the issue of child abuse. The student subject, whose name was disguised, told a harrowing tale of her experience as an abuse victim. She had, however – like many such victims – never reported her claims to police or anyone else. As far as she could tell, she and her abusers, in this case her parents, were the only ones that actually knew the facts – and she did not want them alerted of her accusations. The use of pseudonyms in these kinds of stories is more problematic. Clearly, the story is an important one and the reason for withholding or disguising the identity of the source is understandable. Still, the inability to verify the story through other sources is one that should give all journalists pause. Subjects sometimes lie or exaggerate. So, sadly, have a few reporters when their work was not subjected to normal editorial scrutiny. When such deception is discovered, a news organization’s reputation can be seriously harmed.
Warnings aside, once the editorial decision is made to use a pseudonym (or to withhold a subject’s identity altogether), here are a couple of things to keep in mind:
Make sure that your disguise is complete. If you have promised a source confidentiality, you must honor that promise. No excuses. Obviously, you should not use their name – or any derivative of their name. But identification can also take place where you provide other descriptive detail. Addresses, place or date of birth, weight, eye color, sibling or pet names, places or types of employment, school activities or classes, old boyfriend/girlfriend names, religious affiliations – even the type of car the subject drives are all the sort of facts that can – on their own or taken together – identify an otherwise unnamed individual. As a general rule, be careful about using identifiers that narrow down the list of possible subjects to a group of under 25 (or better yet, 50). For example, if there are 100 teachers at your school, you can describe the subject as a “Washington High School teacher.” Assuming that gender is split 50/50, you are also safe in identifying him by gender. If, however, there are only five math teachers at Washington High School, you cannot safely describe him as such. There is a fine line between providing enough information so that the story does not mislead readers and providing too much, which could lead to identification, but that is a problem you assume when you agree to use pseudonyms.
Make sure that a “disguised” subject does not too closely resemble a third party to whom you might never have intended to refer. For instance, in the above example, identifying a subject as a Washington High School math teacher will not only get very close to blowing the cover of your subject, it will likely also upset the other four math teachers who may also be reasonably viewed with suspicion. Also, it’s a huge world out there. Stick with common, generic pseudonyms and descriptions. For example, “inventing” the name “Daisy Doodles,” for your subject might seem like a safe thing to do until the real “Daisy Doodles” from Florida and Oregon (I looked it up) come knocking on your door after finding your story published on the school website. Simply calling your subject “John” or “Mary” may be a better choice.
Readers must be informed. A prominent disclaimer at the top of the story explaining that names (and any other details) have been changed is a must. Not only do ethics demand that readers not be misled, a disclaimer also provides protection against claims that a party has been wrongly identified.
Newsroom staff must be made aware of the importance of protecting the subject’s identity. Ideally, only the reporter (and perhaps an editor) should know the identity of the source. If that’s not possible, staff should be clearly instructed not to engage in gossip or the dissemination of information outside the newsroom. If too many people know the identity of your subject, the risk of disclosure is too high and the story will need to be shelved until the source agrees to waive her requirement of anonymity.
In the end, the decision to use a pseudonym or withhold a source’s identity is primarily an editorial decision. As the above suggests, however, it is not a decision that should ever be made lightly. While the benefits can be great, so too are the risks.