Journalists should always drive a hard bargain before agreeing to withhold a source’s name.
Andrew Beaujon, my former TBD colleague now writing for Poynter, doesn’t think it’s a big deal to let company spokespeople speak without identification:
I’m also a little loath to rip the practice because half the time I don’t think readers care which flack passed on the frequently anodyne statements I’m including.
Andrew was responding to David Segal, who writes “The Haggler” column for the New York Times. In trying to address a complaint from a consumer about a Samsung printer, Segal expressed dismay about a spokesperson who declined to be identified:
When the Haggler wrote to Samsung, a woman named Rachel Quinlan, who works for the public relations firm Weber Shandwick, sent an e-mail that she said should be attributed to a “spokesperson” for the company. She declined to name that person.
Really? A spokesperson — a person who speaks for a living — who wants to be anonymous? Not only does this sound ridiculous, it also makes Samsung seem tin-eared. Actually, that is unfair to tin, which is far more supple than Samsung is in this circumstance. What consumers and the Haggler want when products break is some sense that human beings are trying to fix them. (Note to corporations: the anonymous spokesman is a dreadful idea.)
I agree with Segal, except that he then went on to quote the anonymous spokesperson at some length.
The first of journalism’s 5 W’s is who. I’m going to be really demanding if you don’t want me to answer that question. There aren’t many spokespeople who can meet my standards unless they’re telling me things their bosses don’t want me to know.
Here’s my position on spokespeople who won’t allow use of their names: I would publish that the company (or politician or organization) would not authorize anyone to speak on the record on the matter and that the situation doesn’t meet my standards for using unnamed sources. I would not use a single quote from the spokesperson. If I needed some factual information provided by the spokesperson, I would paraphrase or summarize briefly.
Andrew is right that readers might not care a lot about the identity of the spokesperson. Here here’s why I care:
- Journalists overuse unnamed sources and I want to set the bar high.
- Even though readers might not care about the identity of a particular spokesperson, they do care about our overuse of unnamed sources and they are less trusting of a particular story or of journalism in general when they see unnamed sources.
- It’s tougher to insist on accountability with other sources if you don’t even require spokespeople to give their names.
- Sources, especially professional spokespeople, lie to journalists way too often when we do use their names. I trust them even less when you strip away that layer of accountability.
Here’s how I explained this position in an earlier post on this nameless mouthpieces:
The first point of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics is “Seek truth and report it.” You should only grant confidentiality in a quest to find the truth. Granting confidentiality to cowards too often leads to reporting of lies.
Here are my standards for granting confidentiality to sources:
- If I am trying to persuade someone to tell me something she wouldn’t normally tell a reporter (I have interviewed many victims of rape and other crimes, for instance), I usually grant confidentiality, though I often tell the person I might try later to persuade her to go on the record.
- If I grant confidentiality, I usually tell the source that makes it less likely that I will use him as a source in the story. I use interviews with sources who don’t give their names mostly as background material.
- I ask why the source doesn’t want me to use her name. Valid fear of losing a job, criminal prosecution, personal danger or other consequences will usually prompt me to grant confidentiality. For instance, I granted confidentiality in writing a story about a domestic-abuse victim who had changed her identity.
- I use discussions of confidentiality to find better sources. Sometimes in probing reasons for confidentiality, I discover a lack of confidence in the facts that I wouldn’t learn if I granted confidentiality lightly. For instance, the person might be giving me second-hand information. More than once, this conversation has led me to first-hand sources, rather than relying on unnamed second-hand sources. And invariably, the first-hand account is more detailed and more accurate.
- If you don’t give me your name, I will use you only for facts, not for opinions.
- If you are powerful, I am highly reluctant to grant you confidentiality and won’t grant you confidentiality to disparage a less powerful person.
- If you are eager to give me information, I am eager to use your name and reluctant to use anything from you without the name.
- As I explained in an earlier post, I have on rare occasions when sources had good reasons not to talk to me, I let them decide after the interview whether it was on the record. I feel that if I can spend an hour or a few hours with you, I can get you to trust me with your story.
I have another situation where I use confidentiality in the context of this blog differently than I would have when I was a reporter: Sometimes people email me asking for advice. They are writing me privately, sometimes about differences with an editor or colleague. They are not suggesting blog posts, but I choose to address their issues in a blog post and I don’t use their name, out of respect for the privacy with which they initially wrote me.
A final point that I’ve made before: I usually use the words confidential or unnamed to describe these sources, rather than anonymous, because we really know who these sources are. Because Segal was dealing with a PR person who was relaying the statements from the spokesperson, this source was truly anonymous. Even more reason not to use him or her.
Here are some tweets from a discussion on this topic last night (plus a Poynter tweet from this morning):
I side w/ David Segal &
@myersnews,@abeaujon: Spokespeople should be identified. We have too many unnamed sources.poynter.org/latest-news/me…— Steve Buttry (@stevebuttry) August 21, 2012
Let’s save confidentiality for whistleblowers who have valid reasons for being unnamed:poynter.org/latest-news/me…
— Steve Buttry (@stevebuttry) August 21, 2012
Letting mouthpieces be unnamed lessens accountability & cheapens the important practice of legitimate confidentiality. poynter.org/latest-news/me…
— Steve Buttry (@stevebuttry) August 21, 2012
So agree! RT
@stevebuttry: Mouthpieces being unnamed lessens accountability; cheapens legitimate confidentiality. poynter.org/latest-news/me…— Cynthia Moxley (@cmmoxley) August 21, 2012
PR guy here in school vote refused to reveal client! RT
@stevebuttry: Mouthpieces being unnamed lessens accountability.poynter.org/latest-news/me…— Cynthia Moxley (@cmmoxley) August 21, 2012
@stevebuttry There are times and cases where truly important stories will only get out when a reporter can guarantee anonymity.— Roger Aylworth (@RogerAylworth) August 21, 2012
@stevebuttry Any reporter should know that because he or she is likely to face going to jail behind to jail behind such a guarantee.— Roger Aylworth (@RogerAylworth) August 21, 2012
Amen. RT
@stevebuttry: Let’s save confidentiality for whistleblowers who have valid reasons for being unnamed:poynter.org/latest-news/me…— David Conti (@DConMan) August 21, 2012
Let’s not quote anonymous spokespeople, says
@stevebuttry: journ.us/NhCFkv 75% of you disagree: journ.us/QTHQrK— Poynter (@Poynter) August 21, 2012
How about using the term “unidentified?” After all, your sources do all have names. #pickypicky
LikeLike
[…] Ainda sobre este tema, é preciso ler o post de Steve Buttry de hoje, que contém uma frase lapidar: “You should only grant […]
LikeLike
My college newspaper doesn’t allow us to use unnamed/anonymous sources which is a good idea.
LikeLike
99.9 percent of the times in situations like this on my beat, the spokesperson is relaying a statement that a company’s entire PR team has put together. An example: Facebook makes an acquisition, I request confirmation of the acquisition, a spokesperson responds with the statement in an email and asks that I not name them. Well, that spokesperson did not write the statement, she just copied and pasted it an email to me. Readers care not one iota if the statement comes attached with a name or “A Facebook spokeswoman said in an email.” If the information is at all sensitive, of course I want to name the spokesperson involved, but that would seriously be one case in a thousand. Again, this is my specific beat, but equating the hundreds of times I’ve gotten a generic quote from a generic spokesperson whom I do not name with “granting anonymity” is a large leap, in my mind.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
In its own context, this sounds fairly harmless. But to the reader, a named person has more credibility than a generic spokesperson, even if the name itself doesn’t mean much. I don’t think anyone is under any confusion about spokespeople are speaking for other people, but answering the question who remains good journalism. And it’s harder to push other sources to agree to identification in other situations if we routinely agree to withhold names of Facebook mouthpieces.
LikeLike
Steve,
I would say the “who” in all of these situations is the company, not the spokesperson. Yes, yes, I know, companies are not people, but these companies have large PR departments that typically work on these statements as a group, so attaching a name to the statement is truly more disingenuous in most cases than just crediting it to the company, No matter if the practice is general knowledge or not, that spokesperson did not say that, they passed it along from a group consensus. In business journalism, where this is quite common, the most important perspective to place in an article is from the company itself, no matter who said it. While other industry sources may bring up the habit when pushed to speak on the record, it is easy to point out the difference between handing out information from a company and being a whistleblower. And truthfully, I believe very few people will notice “a statement from Apple read” sted “Apple spokeswoman Josephine Doe said”.
LikeLike
I don’t cover business that much these days, but if the company spokesman offers a pithy phrase beyond the canned one, that’s a reason to pin a name to the comment.
That said, the usual practice is probably pretty lax, like so:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/us-japan-drag-argentina-to-wto-over-trade/story-e6frg133-1226455426972
Perth Now
US, Japan drag Argentina to WTO over trade
* From: AAP
* August 22, 2012 6:03AM
THE United States and Japan have filed separate disputes at the World Trade Organisation against Argentina, alleging illegal import restrictions, the trade arbiter said Tuesday.
The disputes were lodged independently with the WTO’s Geneva-based secretariat, a spokesman said.
According to the US and Japan, Argentine measures “restrict imports of goods and discriminate between imported and domestic goods”, the spokesman added.
Their call for consultations “gives all parties an opportunity to discuss the matter and to find a satisfactory solution without proceeding further with litigation,” he said.
================
But here’s a usage more in keeping with the spirit of Steve’s post:
http://jezebel.com/5936654/misogynist-and-noted-fathead-donald-trump-made-spokesman-for-the-womens-tennis-association
Misogynist and Noted Fathead Donald Trump Made Spokesman for the Women’s Tennis Association
Madeleine Davies
The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) recently released a 60 second PSA featuring various celebrities discussing the strength and enduring qualities of female tennis players as a part of their “Strong Is Beautiful” campaign and, while some of the spokespeople make sense (Billie Jean King, Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova) and others are slightly puzzling (Stanley Tucci and Randy Jackson), a certain individual stands above the rest as one of the most questionable and offensive representatives that a women’s organization could ever possibly choose — known woman-hater and all-around dickbag Donald Trump.
LikeLike
[…] an old workshop handout), transparency, expressing opinions in social media and multiple posts on confidential sources (including another from the Training Tracks […]
LikeLike
[…] ethical or sensitive issues that will require the top editor’s attention? Does the story use unnamed sources and has the appropriate editor approved the granting of confidentiality? Spell out the concerns and […]
LikeLike
[…] Spokespeople should be named; set the bar high for confidentiality […]
LikeLike
[…] I’m not inclined to quote a spokesperson without using her name. If she’s speaking for an official, organization or company, she should be on the record. I blogged about this last year. […]
LikeLike
[…] Spokespeople should be named; set the bar high for confidentiality […]
LikeLike
[…] Spokespeople should be named; set the bar high for confidentiality […]
LikeLike
[…] Spokespeople should be named: Set the bar high for confidentiality […]
LikeLike
[…] Spokespeople should be named: Set the bar high for confidentiality […]
LikeLike
[…] Spokespeople should be named; set the bar high for confidentiality […]
LikeLike
[…] talked about the importance of power and eagerness in granting confidentiality, and suggested we should not quote spokespeople for powerful people and organizations without using their […]
LikeLike
[…] will talk about the importance of power and eagerness in granting confidentiality, and suggest we should not quote spokespeople for powerful people and organizations without using their […]
LikeLike