THE ESSENTIALS OF SOURCING FOR JOURNALISTS

Source: REUTERS (The Essential of Reuters Sourcing- Handbook of Journalism)

When to source

You must source every statement in every story unless it is an established fact or is information clearly in the public domain, such as court documents or in instances when the reporter, photographer or camera operator was on the scene. Good sources and well-defined sourcing help to protect the integrity of the file from overt outside pressures and manipulation and such hazards as hoaxes.

When using quotes, make sure the source of the quote is identified as quickly as possible, usually after the first sentence. The reader should not have to plough through a long quote of 2-3 sentences before discovering who is speaking. Do not run quotes from different speakers together. If an event is not contentious it may be legitimate to begin a story with a paragraph that does not contain a source, as long as the sourcing is clearly given high in the story.

Next best is a named source

Just because you have a named source does not mean you are free from responsibility for what you quote the source as saying. Whenever possible, sources should be identified by name and position. Such specific sourcing enables readers to gauge the accuracy of a story by telling them how close sources are to the information. Even information from a named source should normally be checked and balanced, especially in a situation of conflict or a negotiation.

While a named source may not be more reliable than an unnamed one, it gives more protection if your story is challenged. It also helps to avoid situations that may lead to journalists having to protect the identity of sources and, along with tapes and meticulous notes, helps to prevent sources from denying that they contributed information to a story. Negotiate hard to identify sources who do not want to be named in copy; with a bit of coaxing, they can quite often change their mind.

The weakest sources are those whose names we cannot publish. Reuters uses anonymous sources when we believe they are providing accurate, reliable and newsworthy information that we could not obtain any other way. We should not use anonymous sources when sources we can name are readily available for the same information.

Unnamed sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us, or must represent an authority with direct knowledge. Remember that reliability declines the further away the source is from the event, and tougher questions must asked by reporters and supervisors on the validity of such information.

Responsibility for reporting what an anonymous source says resides solely with Reuters and the reporter. There is no liability or potential reputational damage to the source, making this the least watertight form of sourcing. We should convey to readers as clearly as possible why we believe the source is reliable, and what steps we have taken to ensure we are not being manipulated. This is done most effectively by the way we describe the source. The more removed the source is from a subject, the less reliable the source is likely to be. Reporters and editors should question the validity of information from a source remote from the action.

Be as specific as possible. Negotiate hard with your source to agree a description that is sufficiently precise to enable readers to trust the reliability of our anonymous sourcing.

“A source” or “sources”, “observers” or “quarters” with no further description is vague and unacceptable. So is the use of “informed sources” or “reliable sources”. Would we quote an uninformed or unreliable source?

Stories based on anonymous sources require particularly rigorous cross-checking. We should normally have two or three sources for such information.

Unnamed sources rank as follows, in order of strength:

• An authoritative source exercises real authority on an issue in question. A foreign minister, for example, is an authoritative source on foreign policy but not necessarily on finance.
• An official source, such as a company spokesman or spokeswoman, has access to information in an official capacity. This person’s competence as a source is limited to their field of activity.
• Designated sources are, for instance, diplomatic sources, conference sources and intelligence sources. As with an official source, they must have access to reliable information on the subject in question.

Single source stories

Stories based on a single, anonymous source should be the exception and require approval by an immediate supervisor, such as a bureau chief or editor in charge. The supervisor must be satisfied that the source is authoritative. (Supervisors may give approval in advance to experienced senior correspondents working with authoritative sources to ensure we remain competitive on timings.) If there are any questions about a single-source story, the supervisor should escalate the matter to Top News or regional editors.

Factors to be taken into account include the source’s track record and the reporter’s track record. The supervisor may decide to hold the story for further checks if the sourcing is unsatisfactory. For a single source story, the informant must be an actual policymaker or participant involved in the action or negotiation with first-hand knowledge, or an official representative or spokesperson speaking on background. Such information should be subject to particular scrutiny to ensure we are not being manipulated.

The supervisor’s approval should be noted on the outgoing copy (in the “edited by” sign-off) so that editing desks and editors in charge have confidence that a senior journalist in a position of authority has authorised the story. If desks still have doubts, they should contact the supervisor concerned.

Policing sourcing

While skilled reporters may have great sources, ultimately the source is talking to Reuters on the understanding that Reuters may choose to publish the information. Thus the source’s compact of anonymity is with Reuters.

Reporters are expected to disclose their sources, when asked, to their immediate supervisor, whether bureau chief or reporting unit head. Refusal to do so may result in the story being held for further reporting or spiked.

It is the supervisor’s duty to ensure sourcing is appropriate and information is obtained properly, particularly for sensitive stories. Reporters should approach their manager if they have doubts about sourcing. The supervisor should enquire only for legitimate editorial reasons, not out of personal curiosity, and should take into account the reporter’s experience and track record before doing so.

Protection of the confidentiality of sources by both reporter and supervisor is paramount. In many cases, questions about the nature or position of the source rather than the name should suffice. Names of sources should never be put in writing, whether in internal e-mails, service messages, Reuters Messaging or other documents that could be subject to disclosure.

Bureau chiefs/reporting unit heads should escalate the issue if they feel uncertain about whether sourcing is appropriate. Usually that will mean involving a specialist editor in charge. If that happens, the reporter should be told. The supervisor should not disclose the name of the source but may discuss the nature, position, access and track record of the source.

Desk editors may not ask a reporter to identify a source by name but may speak to the reporter or the supervisor if they have concerns about the strength of the sourcing.

Reuters will stand by a reporter who has followed the sourcing guidelines and the proper approval procedures.

Honesty in sourcing

Be honest in sourcing and never deliberately mislead the reader. Never use pseudonyms which by definition are misleading. Never cite sources in the plural when you have only one source. In a conflict, dispute or negotiation, always try to speak to all sides, and make clear which side your source is on, or whether the source is a third party.

There are occasions when a news maker may tell us more on an unnamed basis than he or she is willing or allowed to say on the record. The off-the-record information is often the real story, or the strongest part of the story, yet the temptation is often to cite the same source twice – both on the record and off the record. This is not permissible. Nor should we quote a source as saying one thing on the record and the opposite, or something that is clearly contradictory, on background. It is permissible to leave out the on-the-record comment on the grounds that Reuters must not mislead readers. For example, we cannot quote a company spokesman as declining comment if he or she provides off-the-record information. But if on-the-record comment is needed, it should be sought from another individual with knowledge of the matter.