Posted in Confidential sources, New York Times, tagged anonymous sources, Dean Baquet, Eric Nalder, Erik Wemple, Margaret Sullivan, Matt Purdy, New York Times, Phil Corbett, Susan Chira, Tafsheen Malik, unnamed sources on March 16, 2016 |
1 Comment »
The New York Times finally has a new and (hopefully) improved process for handling stories using unnamed sources. The process is outlined in a memo from Executive Editor Dean Baquet, Deputy Executive Editor Matt Purdy and Standards Editor Phil Corbett, and was reported Tuesday by Public Editor Margaret Sullivan.
The memo outlines which editors need to sign off on different types of uses of unnamed sources. As a frequent critic of the Times’ overuse of unnamed sources, I applaud the effort to be more demanding of reporters seeking to use them. I agree with Sullivan’s assessment:
This is a sensible, moderate and necessary plan. The devil, of course, is in the enforcement. The Times often has not done an effective job of carrying out the policy it already has, one element of which states that anonymous sources may be used only as “a last resort.”
If the Times editors uphold high standards in approving use of unnamed sources, the new process will be a huge step forward, ending the frivolous and needless use of confidential sources while still leaving the Times positioned to deal with informed source who sometimes are the only way to tell important stories on such matters as national security and law enforcement. (more…)
Read Full Post »
In last week’s post on interviewing reluctant sources, I cited Eric Nalder‘s advice on “ratcheting” to gradually get some or all of a source’s information on the record:
At the end of the interview, pick out a good quote in your notes that isn’t too damning and say: ‘Now what about this thing you said here? Why can’t you say that on the record?’ If they agree to put that comment on the record, go to another one in your notes and say: ‘Well, if you can say that on the record, why can’t you say this?’ And so on. I have gotten an entire notebook on the record this way. If they insist on anonymity, however, you must honor it.
Eric, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, responded on Facebook with more advice for dealing with reluctant sources (I added a link):
- If you already possess information the source would be curious about, use that to your advantage in approaching them. Former colleague Pete Carey approached a crucial source in New Orleans – post Katrina – and said, as the man was closing the door, “I didn’t come here to ask you questions, I just wanted to let you know what I know.” The door opened and the rest is history.
- Finish every initial encounter with the suggestion that the source will want to know – as time goes on – what you have discovered and what you plan to publish. Of course, you’ll need extensive personal information to re-contact them: cell phone number, home phone number, email address, home address, office address and, perhaps, some additional info (DOB, SSN) in case you lose track. I’ve gotten the whole nine yards that way. In one case, we were able to track a man’s criminal activity using what he gave me.
- Deeply background every source you approach, preferably ahead of time, and I mean scorched earth, without spooking the more sensitive ones.
- Sometimes my most aggressive backgrounding activities – including contacting neighbors, colleagues, etc. – have caused a reluctant source to contact me, instead of the other way around. People who contact you – rather than you contacting them – tend to be more supplicant, which can be an advantage to a reporter.
- Always ask sources for a list of their friends and enemies (sometimes this line of questioning requires subtlety). Then ask what each enemy would say about them.
- Never argue with a person about their reluctances. Simply interview those fears. You’ll be amazed at the results of that approach.
- In extreme cases – where sources must remain anonymous – get them to sign sworn affidavits. An added benefit — your readers will find these affiants more believe-able (see our Brock Adams investigation).
- Final point – the vast majority of sources should be on the record and all methods, including ratcheting, should be employed to assure that.
Thanks to Eric for adding this advice to what I offered in last week’s post. I also recommend reading his “Loosening Lips” handout, from the best workshop I ever attended on interviewing.
Read Full Post »
In a couple of different contexts recently, I’ve had interesting discussions with journalists about the differences between dealing with confidential sources who are feeding you tips and using confidentiality to even start a conversation with a source who doesn’t want to talk to you.
However you handle confidential sources (as a reporter, an editor or a news organization), this is a fundamental difference that changes nearly everything about the situation and how you address it.
One simple example: My friend Dan Gillmor argues that journalists should reveal the identities of unnamed sources who lie to them. He makes some excellent points, and I think that could and perhaps should be part of the agreement with an eager source who contacts a reporter and wants to leak information to you. But I think the consequence of breaking your promise of confidentiality gives you no chance to persuade a reluctant source to tell you anything. Beyond the issue of intentional lying, part of the source’s reluctance might be that he or she has incomplete knowledge, or only second-hand information. If errors on the source’s part will be treated as lies to be publicly rebuked, you’re not getting that interview. The source doesn’t want to talk to you anyway; confidentiality is the only way to start a conversation.
The dynamics are entirely different depending on the source’s willingness to talk. The reporter’s position shifts from demanding to pleading. (more…)
Read Full Post »
I recommend reading Tracy Simmons’ account of why she’s a religion reporter.
I’ve followed Tracy’s career since we met about a decade ago, when I was leading a writing workshop before a Religion Newswriters Association conference. She’s an excellent reporter and entrepreneur who developed the successful religion site Spokane FAVS, covering faith and values in Spokane, Wash. She also teaches journalism at the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University.
This week’s post — about her life growing up in a cult and her estrangement from her mother, who remains in the cult — illustrates the power of personal journalism. I won’t try to summarize her post further here, but I hope you will read it and listen to her talk about her experience.
Too many journalists are too reluctant to tell the powerful personal stories in their own lives, or in their pursuit of the news. I also won’t elaborate on this topic further, but here are links where I’ve addressed personal journalism before:
Storytelling in journalism: No estoy muerta (I am not dead)
Jeff Edelstein tells a difficult first-person story
Tim McGuire tells a powerful personal story of disability and acceptance
Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists
The heart: one of journalism’s best tools
Journalism isn’t narcissism, but it’s not machinery either
Read Full Post »
Posted in Ethics, objectivity, tagged Alexandra Petri, Associated Press, Avery Holton, David Broder, Edward Barrera, Jay Rosen, Jesse Holland, Mike Luckovich on March 3, 2016 |
4 Comments »
A tweet from a panel discussion last night reignited the running debate over whether it’s OK for journalists to express opinions:
I was tweeting a comment from Associated Press race and ethnicity writer Jesse Holland, a panelist at Diversity 2016: Race and Gender on the Campaign Trail at LSU’s Manship School of Mass Communication.
As I expected, others reacted to Holland’s view: (more…)
Read Full Post »