October 20, 2009 Special Issue

The Cost on Anonymity

A journalist’s responsibility to name their sources

by Terrine Friday

The public deserves the right to know who you are GRAPHIC ZAK KAIN

Journalists are trained to ask the right questions, but asking the right people the right questions is instrumental to a successful career in the industry. As the most time-consuming part of news writing, interviewing requires fine-toothed precision and accuracy. Putting the words on the page is the easy part.

Attributing information in a story and identifying interview subjects is a basic requirement for reporting and demonstrates a clear understanding—and the proper execution—of journalistic ethics. However, it’s become increasingly commonplace for anonymous sources to be the central relayer of information in breaking stories.

Although this isn’t inherently ethically wrong, most professionals will tell you to avoid anonymous sources when possible. There are few instances when keeping someone’s name off the books is acceptable. In all cases it should only be done when critical information—which should be backed up either by another nameable source or documentation—strongly outweighs the fact the source is not named.

On the record

Although talking “off the record” can be beneficial for a journalist to obtain background information for a story, journalists should never offer that courtesy. In the same vein, a journalist should avoid offering anonymity to a source, for various reasons.
There are three main reasons why a source might want to keep their identity from readers: if releasing pertinent information will pose a serious threat to their well-being; if they could lose their job; and if the public good of releasing said information outweighs the costs of keeping a source anonymous.
Withholding a source’s name from a story automatically relieves that person of responsibility for what they say. A reporter also needs to consider the interviewee’s motives for going off the record. Will the employee benefit? Are they disgruntled? About to be fired? If a publication runs a story based on false information, they could be slapped with a defamation lawsuit.

Defamation

Libel, also called defamation, is the spreading of false and/or damaging information. There are generally four defences to libel that protect freedom of the press: fair comment, which mostly protects the right to editorial commentaries; privilege, as in the case of reporting on a criminal case; consent; and the truth.

In Quebec, truth is not an absolute defence against libel, making it the only place in North America where getting the story right can still lead to a retraction and/or a fine.

Anonymous sourcing can be especially damaging to a publication in Quebec, where reporting what is factual might not outweigh the public interest of releasing such information. It could not only result in a costly lawsuit but could also damage the reputation of the publication.

If journalists could have a simplified, all-encompassing job description, it might be “To be the eyes and ears of the public.” The amount of trust the public puts in the press should undoubtedly be matched with honesty and integrity.