Ruby Cayenne

The aspect of our readings from ONA Ethics that most piqued my interest this week, while it was all interesting, is that of the topic on confidential sources. In the two publications I have had more extensive experience in, El Leñador News and Osprey Magazine, using a confidential source is not something that is permitted unless there is an extremely extenuating circumstance. I have often wondered, if a situation were to come up, how that would be handled specifically within these organizations, or even more, within other news organizations that I have no experience in. 

In ONA Ethics, they state that “[B]efore a journalist grants confidentiality, you should have a detailed discussion of the source’s reasons for wanting to avoid accountability, which is what happens when you don’t name sources.” This brings up the vital question of the “reasoning” and even deeper, how a journalist is supposed to gauge the value of the source’s reasoning. This question requires its own set of research tools as well as deciding personal and professional limits to your leniency in this topic. 

While there are many reasons a source may want to remain nameless, the only reason that to me seems valid is if a source is trying to protect their safety or wellbeing, i.e., their job, the circles they need to remain in, etc. One point that ONA Ethics brings up regarding this practice, however, is to only grant these leniencies if the person who wants anonymity is in a vulnerable position, not a powerful one. Powerful people have been known to use information that they have given unnamed to spread slander and misinformation. 

Another important factor to consider is that in some states there are no laws to protect confidential sources. This becomes a higher risk factor if you are reporting on sensitive information that has legal implications. If you, as a journalist, try to withhold the information you received from said source, you could be fined or taken to jail. “It’s also worth noting that not every story based on confidential sources presents the threat of going to jail,” ONA Ethics says.

Before considering using a confidential source that can be more difficult to fact-check, it is important to determine whether a source can be trusted. Many individuals have ulterior motives that can include leaking information that somehow benefits them or someone they know or work with. I have never thought of encrypting my email, but this is something that ONA Ethics cites in their writing as a useful tool, which has me thinking. 

Being super specific about the terms of an agreement with a confidential source is paramount. You don’t want there to be any miscommunications that could either destroy trust between you and the source or even worse, you use information from them that is a lie, and it affects your credibility even further as a professional. According to ONA Ethics, “[J]ournalists should be especially reluctant to quote a spokesperson without using her name.” “A rare exception might be when a spokesperson is giving you information that doesn’t relate directly to the official or organization she represents.”

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://www.npr.org/ethics#1-honesty-in-reporting

https://nppa.org/resources/code-ethics