Earlier this fall, the Yale Daily News published its months-long historical memory project, “Time, Change at the Yale Daily News: A History.” The project examined the News’ archives to better understand the history of the paper’s coverage of Yale and New Haven, and its past failures in covering marginalized communities. Uncovering decades of inaccurate, inadequate and at times blatantly hateful reporting, the project provided historical context for many of the News’ policies and standards of ethics — including its anonymity policy.
In response to the outrage surrounding the YDN’s editorial decision not to run a story authored by two Chinese international students under an anonymous byline, the YDN’s Public Editor offered an explanation in “Why the News does not publish anonymous stories.” A better title for this editorial would have been, “Why the News does not publish anonymous stories anymore.” For most of the News’ history, anonymously published stories were not only allowed but were standard practice. The first few articles published under bylines did not appear on the News’ pages until the 1940s, and it was not until the mid-1970s that the use of bylines became commonplace. Before this time, there is no record of who authored stories that represent some of the most egregious acts of journalistic malpractice from the “Oldest College Daily,” and we will never know whether they were attributable to the misconduct of a handful of writers or the negligence of entire newsrooms. What we do know is that these stories tended to adversely impact marginalized communities by protecting racist, sexist, xenophobic and otherwise prejudiced reporting under cover of anonymity.
The Public Editor rightfully points to accountability as the main reason why the practice came to an end and why the News adheres so strictly to that principle. Despite anger and resentment directed at the News’ leadership for unchecked privilege, it is precisely because the News acknowledges its staff historically being wealthier and less diverse than its readership and the university it serves that the policy exists. This understanding is critical to the present debate surrounding the policy and necessary to cooling tensions in order to arrive at lasting solutions. It is also important to remember that in an age where “fake news” and disinformation rock the very foundation of our liberal democracy, the question of journalistic accountability is doubly important, especially for student reporters, who are more prone to errors and mistakes than established journalists.
Of course, like any rule or law which governs any set of people, this policy is not beyond reproach and can be subject to change. Before the introduction of the byline to the News’ pages and the creation of its anonymity policy, there were clear and convincing arguments against adding reporters’ names to stories. But as the times changed, so did the rules, and they can once again.
It is clear that the transnational retaliation of authoritarian regimes pose a real threat to journalists and student journalists everywhere. These, our bravest reporters, deserve to be both protected and supported in their journalism careers. However, to call the News’ policy “untenable” ignores decades of history, smears a newsroom whose only goal is to do right by its readers and serves no one.
As we discuss how best to support these reporters and their efforts to fight repressive governments through honest and accurate reporting, let us not be too quick to forget the reasons why the News’ policies exist. While barring the publication of anonymous stories, with limited exceptions, is widely understood to be best journalistic practice, together we can create a new standard of ethics that more adequately meets the needs of our times and serves readers, reporters, free people and those still yearning to breathe free everywhere.
MICHAEL NDUBISI is a sophomore in Saybrook College. Contact him at michael.ndubisi@yale.edu