Blog

Tennessean — Anonymous source use needs a shield

The Tennessean, Nashville
May 5, 2008

It happens a lot on local TV newscasts. The reporter will say, often breathlessly, "My sources tell me that …" or "those close to the situation say …"

It occurs all too often in newspaper or wire service reporting from Washin

The Tennessean, Nashville
May 5, 2008

It happens a lot on local TV newscasts. The reporter will say, often breathlessly, "My sources tell me that …" or "those close to the situation say …"

It occurs all too often in newspaper or wire service reporting from Washington, D.C.: "A highly placed administration source says ..."

On extremely rare occasions, The Tennessean will use anonymous sources as well a decision we don't take lightly.

Anonymous sources can cast doubt on the validity of information, and their use can open the door to sources manipulating the media for their own ends.

But while most media would rather avoid off-the-record sources, sometimes their use is unavoidable. That's why the nation needs a shield law like the one now being considered by Congress.

Without a shield law, police and other investigators can try to strong-arm reporters to reveal sources of information. The threat of being identified can make it less likely that whistle-blowers inside government or other institutions will come forward to expose wrongdoing.

What's more, without a shield law, reporters can become pawns in lawsuits to further a cause.

The bottom line is that when reporters lose the ability to keep the source of some information secret, they lose the ability to report some stories. A shield law would prevent reporters from being hauled into court and ordered to reveal their sources or risk contempt of court charges.

Without that protection, our democracy would suffer.

Journalists of my generation often point to the Watergate investigation that exposed corruption in the Nixon administration as a sterling example of watchdog reporting. But those stories would never have been written had The Washington Post not allowed reporters to use some information without naming their sources.

There are more recent examples, of course. Anonymous sources were used to reveal the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

The issue also strikes closer to home, and with stories of less global significance.

The Tennessean on occasion used anonymous sources in its reporting of the sale of the Predators both in our coverage of the negotiations and in our inspection of the financial issues at hand.

Why did we use anonymous sources in our Preds coverage?

We deemed the information to be central to understanding the issue, and there was no other way to obtain it. Those are the only reasons that justify our use of anonymous sources.

Any use of an anonymous source must be approved by the managing editor, Meg Downey, or by me. We will ask reporters or assigning editors how the source obtained the information and why the source is sharing it with us. In rare cases, I may ask to speak with the source personally before approving the request.

We want to verify the authenticity of the information and we want to make sure the source isn't using the newspaper for his or her own purpose. If the information involves documents, we will ask to see the documents and we will ask how the source obtained the documents.

We often face a problem when the wire services we purchase for national and foreign coverage use anonymous sources. That's most common in Washington coverage. Government officials have long hid behind anonymity to plant stories or to launch vendettas. We often pass on a wire story if its sourcing doesn't meet our standards even if others use the story.

We're not alone. More and more newspapers are adhering to stricter rules about sourcing. The principal reason is credibility.

Increasingly, readers doubt information that isn't openly attributed. I can't blame them.

There have been too many examples of national reporters embarrassed by their own zeal to get a story first or to prove a point they've been burned by dishonest sources. Remember Dan Rather's report about President Bush's National Guard service? Remember Dan Rather?

So we take the use of anonymous sources seriously. We use them rarely and grudgingly and only when there is no other way to get key information for an important story.

But journalists need a shield law to protect the rare use of anonymous sources when they are critical. Otherwise, we may lose an important tool that, if used sparingly and judiciously, can bring to light problems and situations that are critical for their audiences to understand.

Mark Silverman is editor & vice president/content and audience development for The Tennessean

Archive

Contributors