The competition to break news has become more challenging for all of us with developments online and the reach of social media.
Most newspapers have long-held standards requiring multiple (and usually) on-the-record sources before a story can be stamped for publication.
But in the era of new media, have those benchmarks been softened? Does your Web site adhere to the same level of oversight as does your print product? What about in your writers’ use of social media?
Sports editors Jeff Rosen of the Houston Chronicle, Nick Mathews of the (Newport News) Daily Press and John Bednarowski of the Mariettta Daily Journal agreed to take on the topic in the November APSE Roundtable.
The question: What is your policy regarding use of unnamed sources and how (if at all) has it changed with the 24-7 news cycle? Is there a different standard for your print and online platforms?
ROSEN’S RESPONSE
We take the use of anonymously sourced material pretty seriously, and go that route only after considering some hard and fast written guidelines:
Is the information of significant public interest? Is there reason to believe it’s reliable? Is it an attack on or means of demeaning a person or institution? Does the source have a legitimate reason for wanting to remain behind the scenes, and have all efforts to obtain the information through other avenues been exhausted?
If the anonymously sourced information clears that gantlet, it’s published – but only with the approval of someone at the AME level or above. A copy chief can’t OK the use of an anonymous source. Neither can a Web editor. The policy is the policy, regardless of the story or platform.
We’ve had several occasions where the mad scramble to reach someone with approval power has produced nothing but voicemail for minutes that dragged like hours in the post-it-now vortex of the modern news cycle. In very rare cases, we’ve even missed the chance to be first on a story.
Generally speaking, however, having a clear, written policy gives us confidence when use of an unnamed source is deemed the only way to go. Especially in a digital world in which so many questionable outlets are rushing to shovel out “news” that later proves to be flat-out wrong, readers know they can count on us to give it to them straight, named sources or otherwise.
MATHEWS’ RESPONSE
Our newsroom policy has not changed in recent years with the changing 24-7 news cycle, and the standard is the same for print and online platforms. We try at all costs to avoid using unnamed sources.
If they are used, reporters must share the unnamed source with their editor. Also, writers must NOT promise to the sources that their names will remain anonymous at all costs. For instance, if a reporter is called to court, he or she may give up the unnamed source.
BEDNAROWSKI’S RESPONSE
When I first got into the business, my sports editor required multiple, on-the-record sources for nearly every story. His belief was if a person wasn’t willing to put his or her name with what they say, they were not a legitimate source.
It was a great foundation to build on for a young journalist. It is something I have tried to pass on to my staff. But as times have changed and every detail — true or untrue — about any story can find its way to the internet, we have tried to evolve to make sure we are still the main reference of information people turn to in Marietta and Cobb County — both in print and on the Web.
With that being the case, we allow unnamed sources as a last resort in both platforms, but they still have to go through a scrutiny test.
What is our relationship with this person?
How well do we know this person?
Have they gone on the record with us before?
The better the answer to these questions determine whether we are willing to allow the unnamed source.
