In my past life, when reporters tell me they got the story from a source, I always ask if it’s chilli, tomato or soya sauce. Sources sound important, as if Deep Throat let you in on some explosive state secret. But it just means someone who is privy to some information but who doesn’t want to be named for some reason. Usually it’s because he or she isn’t supposed to be talking in the first place.
Note that the ‘source’ is usually giving info, rather than just a view. And sometimes there is no choice but to go with ‘source’ if info is hard to come by. Media outlets which put a higher premium on ethics don’t just depend on one source. They usually ask for two more before something can go public just in case the source is wrong or lying. This is about doing due diligence.
So if you have ONE unnamed source in the report, either the journalist has cut corners or that one source is an unimpeachable authority who is just shy about being named.
I guess we’ve all watched too much TV where the journalist goes to jail because he refused to obey a court order to give up his source. I don’t think it has happened here, at least not in the last few decades or so. And while sources are secret and sacred, they still have to be declared to the editor. That’s because the editors have to decide if the source is credible enough to merit his input. (One reporter once refused to tell me his source. I told him that I would then refuse to run his story…sheesh!)
What about terms like ‘industry sources’?
Ideally, the source should be described more fully if not identified by name. Saying that the source has been advising technology businesses for 20 years says much more than an ‘industry source’ – who could be the cleaning lady. Or a source ‘involved in negotiations’ or a ‘highly-placed source’ who therefore is not the cleaning lady.
Why this need?
Because journalists should not be so arrogant as to think that readers will (or should) take them @at their word. They have to satisfy readers who wonder if sources are really good enough to be believed. It is about being as transparent as possible while protecting the identity of the source. Unless, of course, the journalist is an old hand and a trusted brand name making it highly likely that he or she would have some pretty good sources aka ‘contacts’ to give news.
By the way, don’t be beguiled by the use of many sources in articles. Savvy ‘sources’ know how to manipulate the news. I have been to media conferences where a person says okay to being named on something but wants to be known as an industry source or anonymous company spokesman on something else. Imagine! It sounds as though there are three people featured in the story. There is just one source adopting three hats. How would you know? I’m afraid it boils down to this thing called ‘trust’. You must trust that the journalist hasn’t perpetuated the fraud on you.
I suppose the next question is: what about ‘experts, analysts and observers’? Note that such people are not in the same league as ‘sources’ who give news. These are people who give views. But that’s the next instalment.
Bertha Harian 