Anonymous sources and granting confidentiality

Transparency and accuracy are crucial to our internal and external credibility. We recognize the use of anonymous sources as a necessary part of newsgathering in print and online. Sometimes certain facts are available only because of information obtained through an anonymous source or sources. Any deal or pact with a source is between the newspaper and its readers; that means it is granted by the paper, not an individual.

An editor must know the name of the source and details of such an agreement before the information is published. The editor might typically be the reporter’s assigning editor, but is not limited to that person. It must be an editor who is involved in the day-to-day assigning of stories and involved in the editing process.

Sourcing gives a story credibility. We use unnamed sources only when there is a clearly-defined reason to do so.

This applies to a variety of stories from investigative to everyday. We refrain when possible from “casual sourcing” of people and information. For example, “… a neighbor said.” Or “…said a person at the scene.”

It is too easy to report what someone says without having their name used. In routine matters involving casual sourcing, reporters need to press sources to speak on the record. If this fails, reporters must decide if the information is important and whether to continue with the interview.

We do not double source. That is we don’t grant an individual confidentiality for some information, but then name them in another part of the story.

In cases where people do not want to be identified, it is important to have details that allow us, if need be, to identify the person after the fact.

In stories when we choose not to name the person who provides information or a quote, it is important the reporter know who the person is they talked to and can provide information about them. This can be done by obtaining a name, address, licence plate, or other identifying details. It is important we retain any record of the exchange such as voice or video recordings and these are to be shared with a supervisor. Editors must press reporters to get information on the record.

There will be times when it is impossible to identify a source: a crowd chanting, a heckler in a crowd, etc. Use of this kind of sourcing is the exception.

When we use unnamed sources we explain to readers why the person’s identity is being withheld, and we make every effort to corroborate the unattributed information. We also will disclose how the person is in a position to know the information being reported.

We do not allow unnamed sources to launch personal attacks or voice opinions.

GRANTING CONFIDENTIALITY

Canada does not have shield laws protecting journalists, so offers of confidentiality to sources should be made in the knowledge that it could ultimately result in fines or a jail term for a reporter who refuses to identify the sources in court. In 2010, The Supreme Court of Canada gave limited recognition to the use of anonymous sources by journalists.

A journalist can discuss an undertaking of confidentiality to a potential source when there are compelling reasons to do so. This agreement between source and reporter is not honoured until such a pact or deal is discussed and approved by a senior editor (department editor, managing editor or editor in chief) prior to publication. There are times when legal counsel will need to be consulted.

When an offer of confidentiality is made, the terms of such a deal must be made clear and understood by the source and the newspaper. It is not good enough to simply say the information being taken is “on background” or off-the-record.” A journalist granting anonymity must outline the terms of the deal and how far it goes. This will include questions like: At what point can or do we disclose your identity and what happens if the information you provide is wrong?

The SCC ruling says ultimately a judge must rule if our use of an anonymous source is to remain shielded, but said it would look at the argument favourably if the following steps in a four-point test were met:1) the source has been assured of confidentiality.2) that anonymity is crucial to the source-journalist relationship.3) the information put forward by the source is vital to the public interest.4) the confidentiality of the source is in the public interest and keeping his/her name secret outweighs the need for disclosure.