Journalism sourcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since July 2006. |
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
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.
For the economic term, see Embargo.
[edit] Unidentified sources
Most sources are not confidential. At least in the United States, most news organizations have policies governing the use of anonymous sources. Critics sometimes cite instances of news organizations breaking these policies. Research indicates that anonymous sourcing undermines credibility; however, in some instances, journalists may have no other recourse.
Whether anonymous sources are used may depend on:
- Whether the information is available any other way.
- If getting the information out serves a greater good.
- Whether competing news outlets might do so.
Many news organizations require use of anonymous sources to be approved by someone senior to the reporter. Some also require the reporter to tell a senior person the identity.
In the United States, anonymous sources are used more in Washington than by smaller news organizations.
When a source requests anonymity, they are referred to as a "confidential source". They may appear in articles:
- With information about why they must be confidential: "One worker, who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation..."
- Cited with authority: "sources close to the investigation", or "a senior administration official"
- As a mass noun: "Critics say..."
- As a pronoun: "Some charge that..."
- As a passive voice construct: "It is suspected that...", "CNN has learned that..."
Sometimes, though rarely, sources are impersonal or unknown. Neil Sheehan received the complete text of the Pentagon Papers on his doorstep, left there by an unknown individual, later revealed to be Daniel Ellsberg. Sources may also engage in disguise and/or voice alteration, nicknames, aliases, or simply not mention their identity, as attempts to ensure their anonymity. In some cases, this may be due in part to lack of trust between sources and reporters or their news organizations. In reality, few journalists will accept information from an anonymous source, though they may pretend to have done so in order to protect the source's identity, or to protect themselves in case a court later orders them to name the source.
Journalists can usually count on the support of their editors and publishers when refusing to identify a confidential source. In many countries, courts uphold the sanctity of the informal privacy agreement between a journalist and his/her sources on the basis of a right known as the protection of sources, in the belief that the confidential nature of the journalist-source relationship underpins the existence of a free press.
In some cases, courts will break the notion of reporter-source privilege, and demand a reporter reveal their source under pain of contempt of court. Often, reporters will resist such demands. In the 2005 Plame affair, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days for refusing to identify vice presidential aide Lewis Libby as her source until he gave her a personal release of confidentiality.
In the United States, some states have shield laws which protect journalists by statute, rather than relying on courts to find a common law justification.
In the United States, a reporter's promise of a source's confidentiality may be a legally binding contract; see Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
[edit] Confidentiality terminology
Communications between a source and a journalist can be governed by a number of terms of use, which have developed over time between journalists and their sources, often government or other high-profile sources, as informal agreements regarding how the information will be used, and whether the identity of the source will be protected. These terms may apply to an entire conversation, or only part. Some of the terms are not clearly defined, so experienced journalists use them with caution.
George Freeman, attorney for the New York Times told the American Journalism Review that he's "never quite figured out" the differences between terms like "background" and "off the record." "I tell reporters if they really want the source to understand, make it clear. But those words generally cause more confusion than anything else." [1]
[edit] "On the record"
The phrase on the record is used to refer to making an audio or video recording, making a transcription, or taking minutes.
By analogy, it has also come to be used by sources to indicate that the information they are giving may be freely reported, and that they may be fully identified.
[edit] "Not for attribution"
Not for attribution simply means that the information given can be used but the source must not be identified. Individuals can be quoted and depending on the source, their general occupation can be named. For instance, someone may be named as a "senior Justice Department official" or a "spokesman" without the speaker's name.
[edit] "On background"
Some journalists consider information given on background to mean that the general information may be reported, but that source is not identified in any way. The term comes from the notion of giving "background information", as in the act of educating the journalist about the subject in general, without saying anything that can be used in a specific story.
[edit] Deep background
For journalists who regard information received on background as usable, the most confidential category is deep background. This type of information can be used only if confirmed by another source not speaking on background, whereupon it might be attributed to the second source. The existence of the original source would remain secret. For example, during the Watergate Scandal, a confidential informant, codenamed Deep Throat, gave information on a "deep background" basis to the Washington Post. While Woodward and Bernstein could use what they'd been told in their investigations, they could not quote Deep Throat directly or indirectly, nor give any identifying information as to who he was or how they were able to communicate with him. In their book about Watergate, All the President's Men, Deep Throat consented to move from deep background to background and the public became aware of the existence of this source.
[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".
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.
[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 a 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.
[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 [2] [3] [4]. 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:
- 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 (in the minds of journalists and others) over the precise meaning of "unattributable" and "off-the-record" has lead 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"[5]: in the UK accredited journalists are allowed in to the otherwise restricted Parliamentary Press Gallery 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] See also
- Independent sources
- Protection of sources
- Double Super Secret Background
- No comment
- Non-denial denial
[edit] References
- McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage.
- Shoemaker, P. (1996) Mediating the Message. London: Longman.
[edit] External links
- Be Clear About Your Source's Biases and Agendas, from the Project for Excellence in Journalism
- Broaden Your Source Base, from the Project for Excellence in Journalism
- Developing and Cultivating Sources, by Steve Buttry
- Viewers as Sources, from Newslab
