The subject of the photo has been whited out to hide their identity, much like pseudonyms are used in articles to conceal a source's identity.

Krystin Arneson, of Overland Park, Kan., was writing a story about prescription drug abuse when she found the perfect source.

But the source was wary of talking and wanted to remain anonymous. Arneson agreed to give her source a fake name in the story.

“She had taken self-medication, which is completely illegal,” Arneson said. “I gave her anonymity to protect her.”

Deciding whether to use anonymous sources is a call many journalists have to make. Problems caused by the use of anonymous sources often make using them not worth the trouble, said Craig LaMay, an assistant professor at Medill.  

LaMay believes in getting sources on the record whenever possible.

“The only circumstances when anonymous sources are appropriate are when someone’s life, security or reputation would be threatened,” he said. “In some countries, to identify sources would put lives at risk.”

Even then, journalists should exercise caution when promising anonymity to a source, LaMay said. Ultimately, the power to keep that promise does not fall in the hands of the journalist, but rather in the courts.

LaMay is hesitant to use information given by anonymous sources because anonymity gives people a license to say things they wouldn’t say if their name were attached to it, he said.

“The problem with granting anonymity is that it allows sources to smear people, and it allows journalists to even make up quotes,” he said. “Often times people who want to be anonymous are trying to use you to be defamatory.”

Instead, journalists should work to make their sources trust them, and if necessary, should find other sources willing to go on the record, he said.

“Report the hell out of a piece and try to make your source have confidence in you that way,” he said. “If all else fails, get the story from another source. Credibility is most important.”