Journalism has always had anonymous sources, but how did NAZA filmmakers check theirs? – opinion

The controversy surrounding the NAZA film has reignited debate on the use of anonymous sources in investigative journalism. While critics argue that the film's reliance on 24 anonymous testimonies from Israeli soldiers and intelligence personnel makes independent verification difficult, the article contends that anonymity alone does not invalidate information. Instead, the crucial factor is the journalist's verification process, including cross-checking claims, examining supporting evidence, and understanding the source's access to information. The article cites several Israeli cases, such as those involving Moshe Ivgy, Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, and Alon Kastiel, where initial anonymous testimonies led to significant investigations and convictions, demonstrating that anonymity can enable crucial information to emerge. Conversely, the Harpaz document case highlights the risks of over-relying on a seemingly reliable anonymous source without thorough authentication. The author emphasizes that the key questions for NAZA filmmakers are not about revealing identities, but about the rigorous journalistic methods used to verify their sources and claims. The article concludes that rejecting a film solely due to anonymous interviewees would undermine a significant portion of investigative journalism, and the focus should be on the transparency and thoroughness of the verification process.