While observing the ongoing controversy over anonymous leaks and journalists not naming sources, it occurred to me that some perspective might help. I worked as a press spokesman for many years, so here is my perspective.
Some believe that people who speak anonymously are doing so for self-serving, possibly nefarious, reasons but there are many reasons for not allowing oneself to be identified by name and position. A good reason to speak anonymously, for example, is to test public reaction to an action under consideration. Another reason may be fear of reprisal if the source is revealing information the public needs or wants to know; this applies whether the source works in government or other sectors of society. Sometimes the information given to journalists may confirm facts the journalist has already unearthed and may not need to name another source.
Assume that the journalists have good intentions: They want to report the news as accurately as they can. Remember also that their work will go through several layers of redaction before publication, so allow for possible misunderstandings and changes by editors. Finally, the most accurate version of the news does not always serve the source's interests, because those who speak with journalists usually want to put a particular interpretation of the facts before the public.
From these realities flow some commonly-held guidelines for interacting with the press:
First, avoid an adversarial relationship with the press. The most important reason is that all players in a democracy need access to the media as a way to reach the public and as a reliable source of information. More pragmatically, the media always, ALWAYS, get the last word. Social media may seem to be changing that, but please consider who will write President Trump's obituary—it won't be him or any member of his family or entourage.
Think before speaking or judging. What information or opinions does the source want to convey, and how does she do so? Not just the most appropriate media outlet, also what words describe an event or policy and whether the source's name and position can safely be identified.
People use terms like “on background” and “off the record”, but these are vague and mutable. If one wishes to remain anonymous, one should specify attribution to a reporter; at one extreme “do not name any source, just use this information as context for your story” and at the other, “use my name”. Often there is some phrase that establishes the source's credibility without clearly identifying him,like "a senior marketing official of X corporation". A reporter who wishes to attach a name to a remark will ask to use the source's name, and will negotiate as specific a description of her source as possible.
A spokesperson or official who condemns unnamed sources has almost certainly spoken to reporters anonymously. Attacks on unnamed sources and on journalists, no matter how forcibly they argue damage has been done to the national interest, are detrimental to our system, which mandates a free press but not an orderly, obedient one.
Comments