Criteria for anonymous sources
How the Star handles unnamed interviewees in its political coverage
An important reader question about trust in the Star: “I am curious what steps a journalist might take to verify what they are told by a confidential source. I can understand the need for confidential sources in the media, but, as a reader I generally put a little less faith in what is attributed to an anonymous source. How would you, generally, decide if a source who wants to remain confidential is reliable?”
The Star’s policy on anonymity states that, “The public interest is best served when news sources are identified by their full names.” When that is not possible and confidential sources — individuals who are not named in the Star — are used in reporting information deemed to be of public interest, the Star’s reporters must take steps to determine the reliability of these sources. This is responsible reporting. In all cases, reporters, and most often their editors too, know the identities of sources granted anonymity in the Star.
Given the ongoing debate about the use of confidential sources in covering Donald Trump’s administration, I have asked the bureau chiefs of the Star’s three Canadian political bureaus to provide their insights on the reader’s question as it pertains to the Star’s political and government coverage. Here are their thoughtful responses. Bruce Campion-Smith, Ottawa bureau chief “First off, a confidential source is generally someone we know very well and have a track record with and built on a relationship usually over years. We’ve assured ourselves that they are in a position to know the information they are giving us and that they have a track record of playing straight. Remember the trust cuts both ways. Not only do we have to trust them but they have to trust us.
The source has to absolutely be in a position to know what they are talking about. No second-hand information or gossip. A bottom line is that any information gleaned this way must be fact-based. We don’t allow someone to anonymously trash another individual. That’s just a cheap shot.
Typically, our sources in Ottawa tend to be government officials who cannot speak on the record be- cause of the sensitivity of the information they are passing. To be found out would put their job in jeopardy. These could be whistleblowers or other insiders whose information may reveal truths that the politicians are attempting to hide.
We have to be alert to the motives of the source in providing the information. Usually the passing of information works to their favour in some way too, perhaps by building profile of a story. But we need to do a gut check to understand their motives.” Robert Benzie, Queen’s Park bureau chief “In political reporting, granting anonymity to a source is often a necessity in order to get them to say anything beyond boilerplate talking points. As we have seen from the New York Times’ superb reporting on the current president, off-the-record sources are essential to understanding what is going on in the White House.
These people sometimes risk their jobs and reputations to speak to the Star. Yes, their motivations are not always altruistic — though we do hear from whistleblowers in politics — but the insights can be invaluable. There are many important stories that would never have been exposed without allowing people to speak on background.
Toronto Star readers should trust the confidential sources they see in the Star because Toronto Star reporters do. I do think we need to explain in stories why we are giving sources the right to withhold their names.” David Rider, City Hall bureau chief “When thinking about whether to use a confidential source, I consider whether the information is of sufficient public interest to justify giving somebody anonymity.
How trustworthy is the source? I never use a confidential source unless I know and trust them from past experience. Anybody who has steered me wrong in the past cannot be trusted with a cloak of anonymity.
Even if I trust them, what are their motivations? What they are saying might be true, but I have to have a good sense of why they are doing it to feel comfortable with keeping their identity secret. For example, I will never quote an anonymous source throwing political muck at somebody else. I see this in print often and I cringe because that is essentially helping somebody be a vandal, taking shots without putting their name behind it.
Is there any way I can get the information without using a confidential source? If so, even if it means waiting a day or a two, I will wait.
I don’t pretend that I look at this checklist every time I consider use of a confidential source, but all these considerations go through my mind. People put themselves in peril trusting me to keep their identity confidential and readers trust the Star to provide them information that is reliable and important. I don’t take any of that lightly.” publiced@thestar.ca