| Journalism |
|---|
| News · Writing style Ethics · Objectivity Values · Attribution Defamation Editorial independence Journalism school |
| Areas |
| Arts · Business Entertainment Environment Fashion · Medicine Politics · Science Sports · Technology Trade · Traffic Weather · World |
| Genres |
| Advocacy · Analytic · Broadcast Citizen · Civic Collaborative · Community Database · Gonzo Investigative · Literary Muckraking · Narrative "New Journalism" Non-profit journalism Online · Opinion Peace · Photojournalism Scientific · Visual · Watchdog |
| Social impact |
| Fourth Estate Freedom of the press Infotainment · Media bias Public relations Press service Yellow journalism |
| News media |
| Newspapers · Magazines TV and radio Internet News agencies Alternative media |
| Roles |
| Journalists (reporters) Editor · Columnist Copy editor Meteorologist News presenter Photographer Pundit/Political commentator |
| Category: Journalism |
In journalism, a source is a person, publication, or other record or document that gives timely information. Outside journalism, sources are sometimes known as "news sources". 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, especially if they regularly cover a specific topic, known as a "beat". Beat reporters must, however, 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.
Contents |
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".
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 the only way to obtain certain information, while others hold strict prohibitions against the use of unnamed sources at all times.[1] News organizations may impose safeguards, such as requiring that information from an anonymous source be corroborated by a second source before it can be printed.
Nonetheless, prominent reports based on anonymous sources have sometimes proven to be incorrect. 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]
Whether in a formal, sit-down interview setting or an impromptu 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. 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.
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 led to the downfall of US president Richard Nixon was in part exposed by information revealed by an anonymous source ("Deep Throat") to investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Divulging the identity of a confidential source is frowned upon by groups representing journalists in many democracies.[7][8][9] In some jurisdictions journalists can be compelled by law to identify their sources, and journalists can and have been jailed for upholding this principle.
There are several reasons to protect confidential sources:
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:
However, confusion over the precise meaning of "unattributable" and "off-the-record" has led to more detailed formulations: