In journalism, a source is a person, publication, or knowledge of other record or document that gives timely information. Outside journalism, sources are sometimes known as "news sources". Examples of sources include but are not limited to 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, as per the saying "If your mother says she loves you, check it out," popularized by the City News Bureau of Chicago.[1] As a rule of thumb, but especially when reporting on controversy, reporters are expected to use multiple sources.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:1 295 95014 1508 4481 7443 059
-
How to choose your news - Damon Brown
-
09. Sources of News
-
Can you trust anonymous sources in journalism? | Jill Abramson | Big Think
-
Sources of News | Reporting and Editing | Journalism | Medha Shukla
-
Alex B. Howard: What Can Open Government Learn From Open Source, Data, Innovation, & Journalism?
Transcription
How do you know what's happening in your world? The amount of information just a click away may be limitless, but the time and energy we have to absorb and evaluate it is not. All the information in the world won't be very useful unless you know how to read the news. To your grandparents, parents, or even older siblings, this idea would have sounded strange. Only a few decades ago, news was broad-based. Your choices were limited to a couple of general interest magazines and newspaper of record, and three or four TV networks where trusted newscasters delivered the day's news at the same reliable time every evening. But the problems with this system soon became apparent as mass media spread. While it was known that authoritarian countries controlled and censored information, a series of scandals showed that democratic governments were also misleading the public, often with media cooperation. Revelations of covert wars, secret assassinations, and political corruption undermined public faith in official narratives presented by mainstream sources. This breakdown of trust in media gatekeepers lead to alternative newspapers, radio shows, and cable news competing with the major outlets and covering events from various perspectives. More recently, the Internet has multiplied the amount of information and viewpoints, with social media, blogs, and online video turning every citizen into a potential reporter. But if everyone is a reporter, nobody is, and different sources may disagree, not only opinions, but on the facts themselves. So how do you get the truth, or something close? One of the best ways is to get the original news unfiltered by middlemen. Instead of articles interpreting a scientific study or a politician's speech, you can often find the actual material and judge for yourself. For current events, follow reporters on social media. During major events, such as the Arab Spring or the Ukrainian protests, newscasters and bloggers have posted updates and recordings from the midst of the chaos. Though many of these later appear in articles or broadcasts, keep in mind that these polished versions often combine the voice of the person who was there with the input of editors who weren't. At the same time, the more chaotic the story, the less you should try to follow it in real time. In events like terrorist attacks and natural disasters, today's media attempts continuous coverage even when no reliable new information is available, sometimes leading to incorrect information or false accusations of innocent people. It's easy to be anxious in such events, but try checking for the latest information at several points in the day, rather than every few minutes, allowing time for complete details to emerge and false reports to be refuted. While good journalism aims for objectivity, media bias is often unavoidable. When you can't get the direct story, read coverage in multiple outlets which employ different reporters and interview different experts. Tuning in to various sources and noting the differences lets you put the pieces together for a more complete picture. It's also crucial to separate fact from opinion. Words like think, likely, or probably mean that the outlet is being careful or, worse, taking a guess. And watch out for reports that rely on anonymous sources. These could be people who have little connection to the story, or have an interest in influencing coverage, their anonymity making them unaccountable for the information they provide. Finally, and most importantly, try to varify news before spreading it. While social media has enabled the truth to reach us faster, it's also allowed rumors to spread before they can be verified and falsehoods to survive long after they've been refuted. So, before you share that unbelievable or outrageous news item, do a web search to find any additional information or context you might have missed and what others are saying about it. Today, we are more free than ever from the old media gatekeepers who used to control the flow of information. But with freedom comes responsibility: the responsibility to curate our own experience and ensure that this flow does not become a flood, leaving us less informed than before we took the plunge.
Ethical guidelines
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 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 writers cannot report certain information directly, they can use "off the record" information to uncover related facts, or to find other sources who are willing to speak on the record. This is especially useful in investigative journalism. 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".
Anonymous source
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 as the journalist. (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 to or how not to identify sources, and whether other options should be pursued.
The use of anonymous sources has always been controversial. Some news outlets insist that anonymous sources are the only way to obtain certain information, while others prohibit the use of unnamed sources at all times.[2] 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.
Prominent reports based on anonymous sources have sometimes been proven to be incorrect. For instance, much of the O. J. Simpson reporting from unnamed sources was later deemed inaccurate.[3] Newsweek retracted a story about a Qur'an allegedly being flushed down a toilet—the story had been based upon one unnamed military source.[4]
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.[citation needed] 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 seven percent in 2004,[5] following widespread embarrassment of media after the Bush administration claims that Iraq had WMDs were found to be without basis.
Sex with sources
In the U.S., this practice is generally not well seen.[6] However, lengthy lists of reporters' sexual involvement with sources were published by American Journalism Review[7] and by the Los Angeles Times.[8]
Not on tape
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 spokesperson said".
Some interview subjects are uncomfortable being recorded. Some are afraid they will be inarticulate or feel like embarrassed if 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 sound bite or part of the interview out of context. Professional public relations officers know that having the reporter repeat their words, rather than being heard directly on the air, will blunt the effect of their words.[citation needed] By refusing to be taped or on the air, a person avoids having an audience see or hear them being uncomfortable (if they have unpleasant news); it also permits the individual to be anonymous or identified only by title.
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 which led 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.
Ethics
Divulging the identity of a confidential source is frowned upon by groups representing journalists in many democracies.[9][10][11] In many countries, journalists have no special legal status, and may be required to divulge their sources in the course of a criminal investigation, as any other citizen would be. Even in jurisdictions that grant journalists special legal protections, journalists are typically required to testify if they bear witness to a crime.[12]
Journalists defend the use of anonymous sources for a variety of reasons:
- Access. Some sources refuse to share stories without the shield of anonymity, including many government officials.[13]
- Protection from reprisal or punishment. Other sources are concerned about reprisal or punishment as a result of sharing information with journalists.[14]
- Illegal activity. Sources which are engaged in illegal activity are usually reluctant to be named in order to avoid self-incrimination. This includes sources which are leaking classified information or details of court proceedings which are sealed from the public.[14]
The use of anonymous sources is also criticized by some journalists and government officials:
- Unreliability. It is difficult for a reader to evaluate the reliability and neutrality of a source they cannot identify, and the reliability of the news as a whole is reduced when it relies upon information from anonymous sources.[14][15]
- Misinformation and propaganda. Anonymous sources may be reluctant to be identified because the information they are sharing is uncertain or known to them to be untrue, but they want attention or to spread propaganda via the press, such as in the case of the Iraqi aluminum tubes, where tubes known to be useless for uranium refinement were presented as evidence of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program by anonymous sources in the U.S. intelligence community in order to build public support for an attack on Iraq.[15][16][17][18] It may also be used to attack political enemies and present opinions as facts.[15] Several journalists, including Paul Carr, have argued that if an off-the-record briefing is a deliberate lie journalists should feel permitted to name the source.[19] The Washington Post identified a source who had offered a story in an attempt to discredit media and to distract from the issue at hand with respect to a case of sexual impropriety.[20] Whistle blower Edward Snowden posted on twitter, the 1983 Vietnam Reconsidered Conference (USC),[21] interview of former CIA officer Frank Snepp in which he discusses how the CIA planted misinformation about the Vietnam War. Snepp's planted stories were published in major US publications including The New York Times, The New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Daily News.[22][23]
- Illegal activity. The use of anonymous sources encourages some sources to divulge information which it is illegal for them to divulge, such as the details of a legal settlement, grand jury testimony, or classified information. This information is illegal to disclose for reasons such as national security, protecting witnesses, preventing slander and libel, and ending lawsuits without lengthy, expensive trials and encouraging people to disclose such information defeats the purpose of the disclosure being illegal.[24] In some cases, a reporter may encourage a source to disclose classified information, resulting in accusations of espionage.
- Fabricated sources. A journalist may fabricate a news story and ascribe the information to anonymous sources to fabricate news, create false detail for a news story, commit plagiarism, or protect themselves from accusations of libel.[25]
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:
| Designation | Description |
|---|---|
| "Chatham House Rule" | Named after Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs), which introduced the rule in 1927: "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":[26] | 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"[27] | The comments may be quoted directly, but the source may be identified only in general terms (e.g., "a government insider" or "company spokesperson"). In practice such general descriptions may be agreed with the interviewee. |
| "On background"[27] | The thrust of the briefing may be reported (and the source characterized in general terms as above) but direct quotes may not be used.[28] |
| "Deep background" | A term that is used in the United States, 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. Alternative meanings exist; for instance, a White House spokesman said, "Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can't be quoted."[29] Deep background can also mean the information received can be used in the story, but cannot be attributed to any source. Depending on the publication, information on deep background is sometimes attributed in terms such as "[Publication name] has learned" or "It is understood by [publication name]." |
See also
Notes
- ^ "Q&A: Blur Author Tom Rosenstiel". cjr.org. Retrieved 2015-10-02.
- ^ Shedden, David. "Anonymous Sources | Poynter". Poynter. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ Shepard, Alicia C. "Anonymous Sources". American Journalism Review. Archived from the original on August 16, 2003. Retrieved December 1, 2019.
- ^ Kurtz, Howard (2005-05-17). "Newsweek Retracts Guantanamo Story". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (2005-03-14). "Fewer Sources Go Nameless in the Press, Survey Shows". The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ "Is It OK to Sleep With Your Sources? - POLITICO Magazine". Politico. 19 June 2018.
- ^ Lori Robertson (May 2002). "Romancing the Source". American Journalism Review. Archived from the original on 18 August 2016. Retrieved 26 November 2020.
- ^ "Romancing the source - Los Angeles Times". Los Angeles Times. 29 July 2007.
- ^ "European codes of journalism ethics / Europe". www.uta.fi. Archived from the original on June 15, 2006.
- ^ "Society of Professional Journalists | Improving and protecting journalism since 1909". Spj.org. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ "You are being redirected". Caj.ca. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ "Sources and Subpoenas (Reporter's Privilege) | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press". Rcfp.org. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ Shepard, Alicia C. "American Journalism Review". Ajr.org. Archived from the original on 2011-08-30. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ a b c "New York Times Warns Newsroom on Anonymous Sources". Gawker.com. 2010-08-31. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ a b c "Press pays a price for anonymous sources | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition". Firstamendmentcenter.org. 2005-05-22. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ "NY Times Reporter Defends Anonymous Sourcing: Government Is Not A 'Unified Entity' | Michael Calderone". Huffingtonpost.com. 2013-03-21. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ Gordon, Michael R. (2002-09-08). "Threats And Responses - The Iraqis - U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest For A-Bomb Parts". The New York Times. IRAQ. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ "Wilson: I questioned Iraq evidence : Local Politics : Albuquerque Tribune". abqtrib.com. Archived from the original on February 5, 2012.
- ^ Carr, Paul (8 August 2009). "The off-the-record gravy train stops here". TechCrunch. Retrieved 3 November 2014.
- ^ "A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation". The Washington Post. Retrieved Nov 27, 2017.
- ^ VIETNAM RECONSIDERED, CIA
- ^ Nov 7, 2022 Edward Snowden, Twitter
- ^ CIA Officer Frank Snepp Discusses Planting Stories in Vietnam, retrieved 2024-01-11
- ^ "Spy leaks put Britain in danger, says MI5 chief". The Times. 2013-10-09. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ "CORRECTING THE RECORD – Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception". The New York Times. Maryland; Texas. 2003-05-11. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ "UK | UK Politics | Lobby correspondents". BBC News. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
- ^ a b "Protection of sources". Canadian Association of Journalists. 10 November 2009. Retrieved 25 December 2022.
- ^ Patel, Nilay (2021-11-10). "Updating The Verge's background policy". The Verge. Retrieved 2023-07-17.
Being "on background" means that they tell things to reporters, but those reporters agree to not specifically attribute that information to a person by name.
- ^ "White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing". Politico. 2013-05-10. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
References
- McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage.
- Shoemaker, P. and Reese, S.D. (1996) Mediating the Message. London: Longman.
External links
- Be Clear About Your Source's Biases and Agendas. Project for Excellence in Journalism. Archived from the original on 18 November 2005.
- Chart – Real and Fake News (2016)/Vanessa Otero (basis) (Mark Frauenfelder)
- Chart – Real and Fake News (2014) (2016)/Pew Research Center
- Information for Journalists from the United States Department of State (scroll to "Ground Rules for Interviewing State Department Officials" section)
- Protection of journalistic sources, a factsheet of the ECtHR case law
- Viewers as Sources Archived 2008-11-03 at the Wayback Machine, from Newslab
This page was last edited on 5 March 2024, at 23:57