A number of readers have written to comment on our article “Citizens charge heavy-handed tactics in recall drive“. Some of these readers have criticized us for running an article which is based on anonymous sources. They say that such pieces, which cannot be verified by independent readers, are undesirable and a debased form of journalism.

These writers may have a point. We agree that anonymously-sourced stories should be avoided wherever possible. There has been a lively debate on the web about this very topic, and we tend to agree that when those who comment or report refuse to stand behind what they say, the media should be very cautious about providing a medium for smears or attempts to spin the news.

At the Leelanau Post, we do not ordinarily publish such articles. If a source has something to say, we feel they should be willing to stand up in public and identify themselves. However, there is one exception, and it is an important one. That is when a source legitimately fears that speaking out could result in retaliation or persecution. In the case we reported on, people we trust and respect reported they felt they had been intimidated by persons collecting signatures for the recall campaign. Intimidation can take many forms. At its crudest, it can involve physical intimidation—as when someone “gets in your face”, as we say. In other cases, it may take subtler forms—threats, or veiled threats. To require that the victims of intimidation or attempted intimidation identify themselves publicly is, in our opinion, asking too much. After all, the implied message of those who try to bully others is that crossing them will have negative consequences. Coming out publicly and identifying oneself and one’s intimidator would have negative consequences as well. We salute those individuals who have the courage to speak up even in the face of implied threats or physical intimidation, but we don’t feel we can ask it of the elderly, the vulnerable, and the weak—the favorite victims of bullies and intimidators.

Should we then not publish an article like ours, which reports attempted intimidation while nevertheless preserving the cloak of anonymity that its victims rightly claim? We don’t think so. To fail to report on these matters would grant the bullies precisely the victory they seek—to be able to take advantage of the vulnerabilities of others without suffering the consequences. That is contemptible, and it is wrong. We understand that articles like ours must be, as it were, taken on faith. We stand by our article. We have heard from people whom we trust and respect that these things happen. We will vouch for them. Our readers will have to make their own judgment about our credibility.

Publishing an article that is based on anonymous sources is not what we would prefer to do. But remaining silent, and allowing the hateful and despicable tactics of bullies to remain in the darkness, would be by far the greater evil. Reasonable people can disagree about contentious political issues—even those as charged and personal as a recall. But when people cross the line from persuasion to intimidation, they have gone too far, and letting their actions go unnoted would be unacceptable.