Journalism sourcing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In journalism, a source is a person, publication or other record or document that gives information.

Contents

[edit] Overview

Examples of sources include: official records, publications or broadcasts, officials in government or business, organizations or corporations, witnesses of crime, accidents or other events, and people involved with or affected by a news event or issue. According to Shoemaker (1996) and McQuail (1994) there are a multitude of factors that tend to condition the acceptance of sources as bona fide by investigative journalists. Reporters are expected to develop and cultivate sources. This applies especially if they regularly cover a specific topic, known as a "beat". However, beat reporters must be cautious of becoming too close to their sources. Reporters often, but not always, give greater leeway to sources with little experience. For example, sometimes a person will say they don't want to talk, and then proceed to talk. If that person is not a public figure, reporters are less likely to use that information. Journalists are also encouraged to be skeptical without being cynical ("If your mother says she loves you, check it out."). As a rule of thumb, but especially when reporting on controversy, reporters are expected to use multiple sources. Outside journalism, sources are sometimes known as a "news source".

[edit] Embargo

Main article: news embargo

In journalism and public relations, an embargo (sometimes called a press embargo) is an agreement or request that a news organization refrain from reporting certain information until a specified date and/or time, in exchange for advance access to the information. For example, if a government official is preparing to make a short speech announcing a policy initiative at 1:00 pm, the official's staff might transmit expanded details of the initiative to news organizations several hours ahead of the scheduled announcement, with a notice indicating that the contents are embargoed until 1:00. This gives the news organizations time to research and prepare complete stories that are ready to be disseminated when the embargo is lifted. In theory, press embargoes reduce inaccuracy in the reporting of breaking stories by reducing the incentive for journalists to cut corners in hopes of "scooping" the competition.

Embargoes are typically used by government or corporate representatives working in publicity or public relations, and are often arranged in advance as part of a formal or informal agreement. Sometimes publishers will release advance copies of a book to reviewers with the agreement that reviews of it will not appear before the official release date of the publication. Complex scientific news might also require advance notice with an embargo. Governments also have legitimate reasons for imposing embargoes, often so as to prevent news reports being an unfair or undue influence over votes in legislative bodies. Artists' names and locations of performances are sometimes embargoed pending the official announcement of the scheduled performance tour. Sometimes publicists will send embargoed press releases to newsrooms unsolicited in hopes that they will respect the embargo date without having first agreed to do so.

News organizations sometimes break embargoes and report information before the embargo expires, either accidentally (due to miscommunication in the newsroom) or intentionally (to get the jump on their competitors). Breaking an embargo is typically considered a serious breach of trust and can result in the source barring the offending news outlet from receiving advance information in the future.

[edit] Using confidential information

Off-the-record material is often valuable and reporters may be eager to use it, so sources wishing to ensure the confidentiality of certain information are generally advised to discuss the "terms of use" before actually disclosing the information, if possible. Some journalists and news organizations have policies against accepting information "off the record" because they believe it interferes with their ability to report truthfully, or because they suspect it may be intended to mislead them or the public.

Even if they cannot report certain information directly, journalists can use "off the record" information to uncover related facts, or to find other sources that are willing to speak on the record. This is especially useful in investigative reporting. Information about a surprise event or breaking news, whether on or off the record is known as a "tip-off". Information that leads to the uncovering of more interesting information is called a "lead".

[edit] Anonymous Sources

The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality. (Lawyers are generally protected from subpoena in these cases by attorney/client privilege.) Legal staff may need to give counsel about whether it is advisable to publish certain information, or about court proceedings that may attempt to learn confidential information. Senior editors are in the loop to prevent reporters from fabricating non-existent, anonymous sources, and to provide a second opinion about how to use the information obtained, how or how not to identify sources, and whether other options should be pursued.

The use of anonymous sources has been a controversial subject for many years. Some news outlets insist that anonymous sources are required to get certain information while others hold strict prohibitions against the use of unnamed sources at all times.[1] News outlets are often embarrassed by a report from an anonymous source that turns out to be wrong. For instance, much of the O.J. Simpson reporting from unnamed sources was later deemed inaccurate.[2] Newsweek retracted a story about a Qur'an being flushed down a toilet that led to riots in the Middle East. The Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 was based upon one unnamed military source.[3] The L.A. Times retracted an article that implicated Sean "Diddy" Combs in the beating of Tupac Shakur.[4] The original article was based on documents and a large assortment of unnamed sources. When reporting on the original story, the Associated Press noted that "[n]one of the sources was named."[5]

After the embarrassment, a news organization will often "clamp down" on the guidelines for using unnamed sources, but those guidelines are often forgotten after the scandal dies down. One study found that large newspapers' use of anonymous sources dropped dramatically between 2003 and 2004. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, a research group found use of anonymous sources dropped from 29 percent of all articles in 2003 to just 7 percent in 2004.[6]

[edit] Not on tape

Whether in a formal, sit-down interview setting or an improptu meeting on the street, some sources request that all or part of the encounter not be captured in an audio or video recording ("tape"), but continue speaking to the reporter. As long as the interview is not confidential, the reporter may report the information given by the source, even repeating direct quotes (perhaps scribbled on a notepad or recalled from memory). This often shows up in broadcasts as "John Brown declined to be interviewed on camera, but said..." or simply "a spokesman said...".

Some interview subjects are simply uncomfortable being recorded. Some are afraid that they will be inarticulate and make fools of themselves when the interview is broadcast. Others might be uncooperative or distrust the motives or competence of the journalist, and wish to prevent them from being able to broadcast an unflattering soundbite or part of the interview out of context. Professional public relations officers know that having the reporter repeat their words, rather than being on the air themselves, will blunt the impact of their words[citation needed]. The audience need not see or hear them being uncomfortable (if they have unpleasant news), and not being on air also allows them to be anonymous or identified only by title.

[edit] Attribution

In journalism Attribution is the identification of the source of reported information. Journalists' ethical codes normally address the issue of attribution, which is sensitive because in the course of their work journalists may receive information from sources who wish to remain anonymous. In investigative journalism important news stories often depend on such information. For example, the Watergate scandal that lead to the downfall of U.S. President Richard Nixon was in part exposed by information revealed by an anonymous source ("Deep Throat") to investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

[edit] Ethics

Divulging the identity of a confidential source is frowned upon by groups representing journalists in many democracies [1] [2] [3]. In some jurisdictions journalists can be compelled by law to identify their sources[citation needed], and journalists can and have been jailed for upholding this principle.

There are several reasons to protect confidential sources:

  • In some cases serious harm might befall the source if their identity is uncovered.
  • The willingness of other potential sources to share information with reporters may be eroded if confidential sources are identified.
  • The public perception of journalistic integrity is damaged when assurances about confidentiality are breached.
  • The so-called "chilling effect," which serves to dissuade sources in the future from stepping forward with unknown information for fear of reprimand or retaliation.

[edit] "Speaking terms"

There are several categories of "speaking terms" (agreements concerning attribution) that cover information conveyed in conversations with journalists. In the UK the following conventions are generally accepted:

  • "On-the-record": all that is said can be quoted and attributed.
  • "Unattributable": what is said can be reported but not attributed.
  • "Off-the-record": the information is provided to inform a decision or provide a confidential explanation, not for publication.

However, confusion over the precise meaning of "unattributable" and "off-the-record" has led to more detailed formulations:

  • "Chatham House Rule(s)": so called after Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) which first introduced the rule in 1927, now in widespread use:
    • "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."
  • "Lobby Terms"[4]: in the UK accredited journalists are allowed in to the otherwise restricted Members' Lobby on the basis that information received there is never attributed and events there are not reported. "Lobby terms" are agreed to extend this arrangement to cover discussions that take place elsewhere.
  • "Not for attribution" (as described by the Canadian Association of Journalists). The comments may be quoted directly, but the source may only be identified in general terms (e.g., "a government insider"). In practice such general descriptions may be agreed with the interviewee.
  • "On background" (Canadian Association of Journalists). The thrust of the briefing may be reported (and the source characterized in general terms as above) but direct quotes may not be used.
  • "Deep background" This term is used in the U.S., though not consistently. Most journalists would understand "deep background" to mean that the information may not be included in the article but is used by the journalist to enhance his or her view of the subject matter, or to act as a guide to other leads or sources. Most deep background information is confirmed elsewhere before being reported.

[edit] Neologisms

[edit] Double Super Secret Background

Double Super Secret Background is a neologism, often used humorously, referring to the journalistic concept of keeping a background source secret.

The phrase, coined by Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, gained notoriety in July 2005 during the Plame affair. The phrase originally appeared in an e-mail of July 11, 2003 from Cooper to his Time bureau chief, referring to a conversation with Karl Rove. In compliance with a court order, the magazine released Mr. Cooper's notes, thus breaking the anonymity of Mr. Rove.

Cooper stated[7] the phrase was "a play on a reference to the film Animal House, in which John Belushi's wild Delta House fraternity is placed on Double Secret Probation."

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=49&aid=64013
  2. ^ http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601262.html
  4. ^ http://www.latimes.com/la-naw-quad17mar17,0,7227999.story
  5. ^ http://www.2theadvocate.com/entertainment/music/16786106.html
  6. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/business/media/14reporter.html
  7. ^ Reporter: Rove Told Him of Plame's CIA Tie
  • McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage.
  • Shoemaker, P. and Reese, S.D. (1996) Mediating the Message. London: Longman.

[edit] External links