No reason to drop standards when unnamed sources used
Late on a Saturday evening in early February, I received an email from an experienced editor in the Star newsroom questioning the journalistic ethics of a Canadian Press article published on the Star’s website earlier that day that included nasty anonymous criticism of Jody WilsonRaybould.
“Call me a dinosaur but this CP story falls below our standards,” Patrick Ho, a rewrite editor on the Star’s digital desk wrote, on seeing the Feb. 9 article about the former attorney general of Canada.
Headlined, “Wilson-Raybould entered politics hoping to be a bridge builder” the article included quotes and paraphrased statements critical of Wilson-Raybould’s personal and political style from an “insider who did not want to be identified.”
Ho, who first joined the Star in 1991, and spent some time working at CP, called out the Star’s publication of this anonymous “cheap potshot.”
“Anonymous source taking a shot at the subject of the story? I recognize things have changed in journalism, but this fundamental principle shouldn’t,” he said.
I told Ho I agreed with his concerns and shortly before midnight sent a note about this matter to editor Irene Gentle. She too agreed, stating unequivocally, “If it is below our standards we should not have it.”
Gentle then took immediate steps to ensure the CP article, scheduled to be published in the next day’s newspaper, was edited to remove any material that did not meet the Star’s standards on providing anonymity to confidential sources. The online article was then replaced with the Star’s edited version.
All involved acted quickly that evening because of our shared understanding that the Star’s journalistic standards have long stipulated that nameless people can’t use the Star to sling mud at others in the news. This is rooted in the legacy of legendary former, now deceased, Star managing editor Ray Timson. His fairness dictum, known around the Star newsroom as the Timson Rule, tells us that the Star must avoid allowing anonymous sources to use the Star to attack an individual or organization.
The Timson Rule lives on in the recently updated Torstar Journalistic Standards Guide. Its section on anonymity and confidential sources states: “We do not provide anonymity to those who attack individuals or organizations or engage in speculation — the unattributed cheap shot. People under attack in our publications have the right to know their accusers.”
In the days following publication of that article, that anonymous criticism reported in the story became part of the heated political controversy that has played out in Ottawa and beyond since the Globe and Mail first reported allegations that the Prime Minister’s Office had pressed the then attorney-general and justice minister to find a solution to settle criminal charges against Quebec engineering firm SNC-Lavalin.
On Feb. 14, the Prime Minister’s Office condemned those comments from the unnamed “Liberal party insiders” after the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) published an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, demanding he “immediately and categorically publicly condemn the racist and sexist innuendo about Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould that is being spread by unnamed elected officials and staff of your government in media reports.”
The UBCIC described those anonymous comments as “cowardly low-blows.”
In journalism, as in politics and life, it is never too late to do the right thing.
This week, following its own internal review of that Feb. 9 news report, the Canadian Press issued an apology regarding that article for falling short of its standards on granting anonymity to sources.
“The Canadian Press has detailed policies on the handling of anonymous sources,” says the statement, now published online with the Star’s previously edited version of the story. “They were not followed in this case. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that our journalists use unnamed sources carefully, sparingly and only when circumstances demand it.”
Given the Star’s original concerns about this report, I think CP did do the right thing here in carefully examining the story and how it fell short of its policies on when to grant anonymity to confidential sources. Its detailed note about how it fell short of its journalistic standards shows admirable transparency and accountability to Canadians.
Indeed, this is a critical reminder for journalists and our readers that while confidential sources are vitally important to journalism, as The Canadian Press Stylebook itself says on this subject, we can “show leadership in working to stop misuse of unnamed sources.”