Use of anonymous sources
Risk in anonymous sourcing by Thuy-Dzuong Nguyen Throughout the years, it has been understood that journalists would report the facts backed by sources or references - not only giving us the facts but where they got them. However, it is not always possible to make sources known to readers. For many reasons, among them personal safety and job security, a source will not agree to speak to a journalist unless anonymity in print can be guaranteed. Reporters need to provide psychological comfort and security to the source, and the confidentiality agreement "frees" the source to tell his story as accurately as possible without fear of judgment or consequence. Consequently, accurate and comfortable sources are necessary for complete news stories. Accurate news stories are necessary for the public conversation, especially when they involve failure in government or other public systems. At the same time, there is a risk that government officials can misuse anonymous status to give classified information to the press. The pursuit of news stories involves high risk for journalists who use anonymous sourcing. The probability of a mishap is small, but the cost can still be high. Another great risk in using anonymous sources, especially the kind who are anonymous even to the newsroom, is the case where all or part of the story ends up being wrong or uncertain. Newsweek ended up retracting a story about Qur'an desecration at Guantanamo Bay. The anonymous source called Newsweek after the story was published to say he was not sure of the information he had given. Other stories have involved sources being sued for libel, such as the Wen Ho Lee case, or sources who have committed other crimes. Of course, another downside to anonymous sourcing is loss of credibility because the reliability of the information acquired is unknowable. The Newsweek incident might have been prevented. News editors are making rules stricter for reporters' use of anonymous sources. The Associated Press Managing Editors Association has found some interesting results in two of their recent surveys. In one case APME surveyed top editors at more than 400 newspapers, while the other survey covered more than 1,500 readers. More than 25 percent of news editor survey respondents did not allow anonymous sourcing in their newsrooms at all. Slightly more than half of the surveyed readers, however, did not mind anonymous sources. While this difference in the perception of anonymous sourcing seems dramatic, news editors seem more concerned about risking another Judy Miller case rather than convincing the reader. Newsroom ethical codes exist to ensure truth, accuracy, fairness, and other journalistic values in news stories. In most ethical codes, such as that of the Washington Post, the names of anonymous sources must be disclosed to the senior editors. Anonymity can be guaranteed in print, and the name of the source does not leave the newsroom, but the editor must know who the sources are. The names of sources are protected at all costs and promises of anonymity are supposed to be kept. The Washington Post does not allow the use of pseudonyms. Most newsroom ethical codes see anonymous sourcing as an available route, although one that should be used sparingly. Currently there are no federal shield laws to protect journalistic privilege in keeping sources confidential if the source has some connection to a crime. According to the Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, even the First Amendment does not grant "constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement [the news reporter] makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source." In short, anonymous sources are still subject to the legal process. The ruling provided a loophole in the rights of the press, so that source confidentiality cannot be completely guaranteed. The Free Flow of Information Act, a controversial media shield law, is in the works as of February, 2005, and is being worked out by Congress. The Act would not completely protect journalistic source confidentiality, but it contains stricter requirements for courts to request information from journalists. It would call for "clear and convincing evidence" before a journalist can be pressured to release the name of a source, reducing the amount of risk involved for a confidentiality promise. Washington and Missouri legislatures are also debating media shield laws. proper use According to the San Jose Mercury News' code of ethics, unidentified sourcing should be avoided as much as possible. All possibilities should be explored and all named sources used before publishing comments from any unnamed source. In addition, the reporter is to have discussions with the editor on a case-by-case basis. However the Mercury News goes into great detail about exactly how anonymous sourcing should be done, if it should be done at all. A problem with anonymous sourcing is the problem faced when a critical reader questions the story's credibility. Is this source a composite? Is this source legitimate? Did the source commit a crime? The Mercury News’ code requires journalists to provide as much information as possible about the source, without actually naming him or her, to reassure the reader that the source is not imaginary. This would include information such as gender, profession, why this person is privy to such information (e.g. a witness, an employee of such a place, or other descriptors that help frame the source). The Washington Post code of ethics suggests using a source's department or position as a descriptor in the article. Further, some codes such as that of the Associated Press, requires the reason for anonymity to be included in the story. All told, newspapers have guidelines that prevent or slow down the approval of anonymous sourcing. The codes encourage giving as much information as possible without using the actual name. The best codes recommend an ideal use of anonymous sourcing, giving explanation with a recommended process and levels of approval. It slows down the process for more thoughtful consideration. Confidentiality, as far as a newspaper knows, is permanent. a case study In 1999, Wen Ho Lee was under investigation for suspected espionage in his handling of classified documents. Those involved in the investigation gave Lee's name to the press, which led to a major news story in The New York Times. The Times ended up with a small problem. Lee was indicted and held in solitary confinement for about nine months. Later he was released after pleading guilty to improper download of classified nuclear data, but nothing else. The other fifty-eight charges were dropped. Lee is suing for libel. Five journalists were held in contempt and fined $500 per day for not releasing the names of their sources. Those sources were the people investigating Lee for suspected espionage. The release of source names would expose the sources to legal action. This was one of the most well-known cases in which journalists were called to release source names for legal evidence. Such cases involve the journalistic values of truth, responsibility to profession, civic responsibility, promise-keeping, and fairness. The journalist has a duty to tell the truth when called by system of law, responsibility to profession and promise-keeping to make sure sources continue to trust journalistic confidence, and fairness to citizens, such as Lee, who are ultimately not found guilty of breaking the law. Disclosure of anonymous sources is the same as breaking source confidence, and can discourage sources from confiding in journalists in the future. A promise is a promise, and sources have to consider thoughtfully how they will respond to a journalist's question. Journalists grant anonymity because they are willing to stand behind their decision, nevertheless it is understood that no one is above the law. In Wen Ho Lee's case, there are good arguments for disclosure. Disclosing the names of sources puts the burden on anonymous sources to be accurate and completely certain of their information. Of course we know the outcome. Lee was released after a plea bargain and his charges were dropped. Though imprisoned for nine months in solitary confinement without bail or trial, he was not officially guilty of anything other than improperly downloading classified material. The names of the sources were requested only after Lee's many charges were dropped. Lee was found not guilty of espionage charges. Disclosing names would make Lee's lawsuit more successful. However there is another consideration. Disclosing names would not change the fact that Lee had been imprisoned. He would be compensated, but he would not win back the nine months he had lost nor could he repair any damage to his reputation caused by The New York Times. In this case the five journalists should have shown more responsibility to their profession and to their confidentiality promises rather than to Lee's libel lawsuit. This results in a sacrifice of one man's dignity for the sake of profession, but this is a case of protecting source privilege for the good of the community, and it is worth the cost. According to APME Association's survey, the consequences of anonymous sourcing are of more importance than credibility to the public. News editors are more concerned about anonymous sourcing than the public, which is reasonable. Is anonymous sourcing ethical? It is when it's done sparingly and for the right reasons. As Center for Media and Public Affairs study analyst Matthew Felling described it, anonymous sourcing should be "legal, safe and rare." When absolutely necessary, anonymous sourcing is worth the risk. Many news stories use both known and anonymous sourcing with no problem. Few journalists would give up their confidential sources without good cause, and they would be willing to take the consequences if called to testify or release names. REFERENCES Bill Nichols, "'Newsweek' retracts Koran desecration story", USA Today, 16 May 2005. accessed 4 Oct 2005.Associated Press, "APME Study: Nationwide, Newspapers Frown on Anonymous Sourcing", Editor & Publisher, published 09 Jun 2005, accessed 3 Oct 2005. < http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000954006>.Joe Strupp, "APME Survey: More Than Half Of Readers Don't Mind Anonymous Sources", Editor & Publisher, 17 Jun 2005, accessed 3 Oct 2005. < http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:LbLfSSH1__4J:editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content _id%3D1000963658+APME+Survey:+More+Than+Half+Of+Readers+Don%27t+Mind+Anonymous+Sources+&hl=en>.Katharine Q. Seelye, Jacques Steinberg contributed reporting for this article, "Journalists Fear Impact On Protecting Sources," New York Times, 1 Oct 2005, pg. A12. accessed 4 Oct 2005 <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01react.html>.Washington Post, The Washington Post Standards and Ethics, last updated 17 Feb 1999, accessed 6 Oct 2005. < http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/washingtonpost.htm>.American Society of Newspaper Editors, Archives, Codes of Ethics, 2005, accessed 2 Oct 2005. < http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?id=387>.Branzburg v. Hayes, No. 70-85, 408 U.S. 665. US Sup. Ct. 1972.Associated Press, "W. House Slams Media Shield Law", CBS News, 20 July 2005. accessed 6 Oct 2005. < http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/20/politics/main710368.shtml>.Free Flow Of Information Act, 109th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. 581, Sec. 2: Conditions for Compelled Disclosure. |
