Few things incite or inspire more blowback than the use of anonymous sources. To be fair, this is a long debate in the journalistic community.
In March 2009, the New York Times‘ public editor wrote: “The Times has a tough policy on anonymous sources, but continues to fall down in living up to it. That’s my conclusion after scanning a sampling of articles published in all sections of the paper since the first of the year.”
The Vanguard uses this industry standard as a guideline, but while acknowledging that best practices would compel the newsgatherer to seek out information provided by the anonymous source and get on-the-record confirmations, given our limitations as an organization primarily staffed by one person, we often lack the time and resources to do this.
Like the New York Times, NPR expresses in their guidelines that their “strong preference is to have sources stay ‘on the record.’ ” Moreover, “Before any such information is reported, reporters must make every reasonable effort to get it on the record – if not from that source, then from somewhere else.”
Therefore, they use “information from anonymous sources to tell important stories that otherwise would go unreported.”
At the same time, we believe our value is in pushing for information that would otherwise go unreported.
The decision as to when to use anonymous sources is not done in a capricious manner.
First of all, the Vanguard receives many tips each year from people who do not identify themselves. Most of those tips are followed up on, few if any actually become part of the news.
In fact, we spend a good deal of time debunking charges that appear to be salacious, but unprovable.
Really there are two categories of anonymous sources that we use on a regular basis. One is from government actors – sometimes whistle blowers within government, sometimes elected officials – people that everyone would consider a credible source, who, for a variety of reasons, cannot go on the record.
Usually we do not simply accept those opinions as fact, however. Sometimes we have to go through layers to prove up the claims.
In assessing credibility, it is important to understand the motivation one has for bringing forth the information and the trustworthiness of the individual. In the end, that comes down to a subjective judgment. But the critical point is that the Vanguard reports on information from anonymous sources who are credible and trustworthy, who the average reader would consider credible and trustworthy, on issues for whom the information vitally advances the story.
To give a reasonable example, the Vanguard has received information about the JPA from a source that is close to the JPA. Some of that information contradicts what the public view has been of the city on the issue of the DBO and the possibility that Davis could opt for a Design-Build process at this stage.
The source could not go on the record for a variety of reasons, however, the information, we believe is, absolutely accurate and necessary information. The irony is one of the people objecting to that report was in the direct position to have very easily confirmed it, but for whatever reason chose not to do so and instead chose to use the opportunity to snipe at our decision to report this information.
We would have liked to have had the chance to confirm the information before we reported it, but there are also time constraints, and the one person who had the ability to confirm the report was unavailable, at least to the Vanguard, for a week.
It was a tough decision. In the end, we felt that the need to get that information out, as the WAC was going to be making determinations on which project to choose, was the most important consideration.
The other time when we use anonymous sources are for expert opinions. This is actually a quite unfortunate nature of reporting, at times. Ideally, you would like to cultivate experts who are free to offer their expertise in evaluating a given scenario.
However, there are fields where doing so mean that you put business interests or professional relationships at risk. Some industries are small enough that everyone knows everyone else, and harming those relationships could harm one’s business.
This is an unfortunate situation, but also necessary to evaluate public process sometimes. There are some basic guidelines we use. First, is the individual an expert in the field? Second, does the information provided advance the story? Third, would the typical reader consider the individual a credible source if their identity was known? And finally, can we get the information in a way that the person is not placed on the public record or from another source?
These are all difficult questions. We do not use anonymous sources frequently. But we believe that sometimes they are necessary.
To this end the Vanguard has developed its Guiding Principles.
The section on transparency covers anonymous sourcing:
We write: The Vanguard operates in an open and transparent manner. We will attribute information we receive from others, making it clear to our audience when the information is derived from other sources and when the Vanguard learns that information firsthand. Sources of information should be appropriately attributed.  In order to report stories that promote transparency and open government, and expose corruption or wrongdoing, it becomes necessary to use information from anonymous sources. We must determine to our satisfaction whether the source is credible and reliable, and whether there is objective justification for using the source’s information without attribution.
When using anonymous sources there are several things that are of critical importance. First, there should be no anonymous attacks on other people. Second, while the name may be withheld, any time that they are withheld completely or in portion, the Vanguard will make it clear. Even within anonymous sourcing, the Vanguard will provide as much information as we can about the anonymous individual or individuals. When we attribute information to anonymous sources, it is assumed that these are our sources and that we have obtained the information firsthand from them.
Hope that helps.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Just curious… are the sources anonymous to you (decline to identify themselves to you), or do they identify themselves to you, but you protect their identity from the readers/public?
My problem with an anonymous source is I often think there actually isn’t one and the writer just made them up to back their story.
They are known to me. Every so often I’ll get an anonymous tip, but I don’t report anonymous tips unless I can verify the information through known sources.
Thanks…
[quote]In the end, that comes down to a subjective judgment. But the critical point is that the Vanguard reports on information from anonymous sources who are credible and trustworthy, who the average reader would consider credible and trustworthy, on issues for whom the information vitally advances the story.[/quote]
LOL The Vanguard concedes it is a [u][b]subjective[/b][/u] judgment as to whether an anonymous source is credible – but somehow when the Vanguard reports on anonymous sources they have to be credible and trustworthy! Or to put it differently, one person pretty much writes the articles for this blog, who is clearly biased on many issues, but the reader is expected to accept his judgment as to whether an anonymous source is credible? A bit self-serving, don’t you think?
Secondly, when people speak off the record, then they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, which makes such off the record comments inherently unreliable.
Thirdly, as Chair of the WAC, I cannot responsibly go off on my own and obtain off-the-record comments, and then announce them as on-the-record pronouncements. I can only go by what is on the official record, and the DBO process is on the discussion for the WAC’s long range calendar. It was specifically to be directed to be on the WAC’s long range calendar by Council member Dan Wolk, whom I have great respect for.
There is nothing preventing you as chair from asking anyone a question and the determining whether the information needs to be put on the record? Are you telling me that you never ask staff questions except during the meetings?
[quote]There is nothing preventing you as chair from asking anyone a question and the determining whether the information needs to be put on the record?[/quote]
I DO NOT, as Chair, get to arbitrarily decide what gets “put on the record”! Good grief, would you (or anyone) want me to? I wouldn’t even want me to! LOL 😉
Elaine, your reaction leads me to believe we have two different things in mind here.
Elaine
[quote]The Vanguard concedes it is a subjective judgment as to whether an anonymous source is credible – but somehow when the Vanguard reports on anonymous sources they have to be credible and trustworthy! Or to put it differently, one person pretty much writes the articles for this blog, who is clearly biased on many issues, but the reader is expected to accept his judgment as to whether an anonymous source is credible? A bit self-serving, don’t you think? [/quote]
It is always up to the reader to use a degree of discernment in whether or not to believe the information put forward by any source, be it a news organization, a political party, a think tank, a blogger. I saw David’s article as an honest attempt to put forward the process he uses when deciding whether or not to quote an anonymous source. I am sure that if David had the resources to thoroughly fact check and have each article proofed he would love to do so. I don’t see it as at all self serving to state that the Vanguard does the best it can to verify, just as all news/opinion organizations probably do within their resources, and that it is up to the reader to trust, or not, as is within their nature. We frequently see the full spectrum of trust or lack thereof displayed in the comments here.
One poster said that the came from the position that anonymous sources often don’t exist. I come from almost the opposite postion, which is that I assume that the author is writing in good faith about someone they believe is a reliable source, and that the real issue is that I don’t know their identity and thus do not have a way to judge whether or not I would agree with their expertise or reliability on any given issue. I think it is too much to expect for an organization with the limited resources of the Vanguard to address both ends of this trust/distrust spectrum.
To medwoman: To make my point clearer – if one is going to use anonymous sources, don’t insist the source is somehow trustworthy/reliable. There is no way to know. First of all, one who uses an anonymous source doesn’t know for sure the source is reliable if the anonymous source won’t go on the record. The anonymous source may have an agenda, e.g. defense attorney or public defender. Second, one who uses an anonymous source may only be hearing what s/he wants to hear. Thirdly, one who uses an anonymous source may be cherry-picking his/her anonymous sources, selectively choosing only those that agree w a preconceived agenda. I’ve seen all of these phenomenon occur in relation to anonymous sources that someone insisted were “reliable”. I also know the Vanguard is extremely biased in its coverage and the Vanguard does not deny it – it admits to being an opinion forum, not a news blog. Hope that clarifies…
Elaine
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify. I tend to do better with comments that explain point of view rather than those that use what I consider to be dismissive or demeaning means of communication such as LOL or accusatory phrases such as “self serving” or “pot calling the kettle black” which tend to provoke defensive emotion rather than further reflection. I do realize that this is purely personal stylistic preference on my part, and that some may prefer a “livelier ” exchange over a more reflective ( blander) one ; )
To medwoman: Adages like “pot calling the kettle black” sum up a point of view very succinctly. I just love using LOL bc it makes me feel like a techie – silly I know! LOL