Part VI
Being the Right Kind of
Journalist
19
Holding onto Your Sources
What You’ll Learn_________________________
Thanks to the First Amendment and various state and local laws, you have a thick coat of protection against frivolous complaints about what you write and report. That doesn’t mean you won’t be the target of complaints; arguably, if you’re not, you’re not doing your job. But aside from your employer, there is little to hold you to account for the kind of job you do, except your adherence to the ethics of the business, and your own self-esteem.
In other words, your greatest fear might be losing your job, which should be incentive enough to behave honestly. But even worse might be losing the public’s trust, because without that, you’re just an empty suit. If you pay attention to the lessons learned earlier in this book about fairness and accuracy and balance, you should be safe. And if you pay attention to the lessons in this chapter about playing by the rules with your sources, you should be successful.
In this short chapter and the next one, you’ll learn what those rules are, and how to ensure that you’re carrying them out correctly.
Hold On
Sometimes sources will “embargo” information. What does this mean? Typically, a government agency or a company or organization will tell you that something’s going to happen, but only on the condition that you don’t report it until the day and time they designate.
For instance, the mayor’s news secretary might send you a news release like this:
“Tomorrow at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, the mayor will hold a news conference at city hall to announce that she is firing the city fire chief because of poor responses by the fire department to two major fires in the past three weeks. This information is embargoed until 3:00 PM tomorrow.”
Why is the news secretary giving you advance notice?
1. To make sure the news assignment editor reserves the resources—camera crew (if it’s for TV), reporter, possibly a satellite truck—to cover the story
2. To allow the reporter to do some advance research on the story
3. To allow the show producer to pull up video from the two major fires
4. To make sure the producer leaves sufficient space in the lineup to report the story
What are the rules of the embargo? Pretty simple: you have been given advance notice as a helpful courtesy, but you must keep the story confidential until the time the news secretary has designated for its release.
What happens if you break the embargo by reporting the story before the designated time? The mayor’s news secretary, and probably anyone else in city government who finds out that you broke an embargo, won’t trust you in the future. Maybe that means you won’t get embargoed information any more. Worse, it could mean you won’t get cooperation from the mayor’s office at all any more.
But what happens if another news organization breaks the embargo? Is your station supposed to continue to respect the previously designated time to report the story? No. Once one news organization has prematurely reported an embargoed story, all news organizations are permitted to report it immediately. That’s the rule of the game.
What’s the Point?
Breaking an embargo means a station gets a jump on its competition. But the competitive advantage doesn’t last long, while the damaging consequences do.
When You’re Told Not to Tell
From time to time, usually in connection with stories about crime or politics, a source will give you information, then turn around and tell you that you can’t use it. The phrase for that is “off the record,” and it’s one of a handful of ways a story source will put you in the loop without compromising his or her own position. So let’s look at each one, and explain what each means.
Off the Record
When someone tells you that something is “off the record,” it means you can pursue the story, but can only report it if you can verify the information you have been given with at least one other source. What’s more, if you can verify it and decide to report it, you cannot even vaguely identify the original source, the one who gave you the “off the record” information in the first place.
If you read the classic book All the President’s Men by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, you’ll learn that they got their most damning information about President Nixon, who ultimately resigned because of their reporting, from an “off the record” source who never has been publicly identified beyond the nickname “Deep Throat.” Because the information was accurate, we know in retrospect that Deep Throat was someone who worked at a fairly high level in either the Nixon administration or the Nixon re-election campaign. The only other thing we know is that periodically Deep Throat left a coded signal for Woodward to meet him late at night in a Washington D.C. parking garage, where Deep Throat apparently felt safe about protecting his identity.
Why bother cooperating with a reporter at all? Because pretty obviously, Deep Throat didn’t like the secretive and evidently unlawful ways Nixon and some of his associates operated. Why not act in the open? Because pretty obviously, Deep Throat still had ties to the White House, perhaps still actually worked for the White House, and feared the ramifications if the leaks were traced to him.
Sometimes a source’s motives might not be so noble, if indeed Deep Throat’s were. But still, although you might find it helpful to consider a source’s motive for revealing information without allowing its unencumbered disclosure, by and large the information will be helpful and worth hearing, motive notwithstanding. For no matter what the motive, or how limited you are by the terms of its source, it will help you focus your search for a story … and perhaps put you on a story you hadn’t even known to research.
However, try whenever possible to persuade your source to give you information either on “deep background” or “not for attribution,” both of which you’ll learn about next. If you accept something “off the record,” you could conceivably end up with a blockbuster piece of information, and no way to use it. The worst thing that can happen when you ask is, the source tells you, “It’s off the record or nothing!”
Deep Background
Unlike “off the record” information, you can report information someone gives you on “deep background,” but you cannot identify the source, not even in the most general terms. You simply must be satisfied to attribute your information to “a source.” Perhaps you can find a second source to confirm it, one who is willing to be identified.
What this means is if you have something on deep background, you cannot say where it came from.
So if, for hypothetical example, the governor’s news secretary has told you on deep background that he has seen the governor writing checks from the state ledger for personal expenses, what can you say in your story about the news secretary?
Try these, and figure out which one is right:
Lindy Moore, the governor’s news secretary, told me today that the governor has been writing checks for personal expenses from the state ledger.
Nope, can’t do it. You’ve named the source.
The governor’s news secretary told me today that the governor has been writing checks for personal expenses from the state ledger.
Nope, still no good. You haven’t used his name, but his identity is obvious.
An aide to the governor told me today that the governor has been writing checks for personal expenses from the state ledger.
No better, really. There may be a few aides in the governor’s office, but it might not be hard for the governor to figure out which one leaked the report, or to fire the whole lot! For that matter, maybe the governor knows that the news secretary is the only one who has seen him writing the checks.
A source at the state capitol told me today that the Governor has been writing checks for personal expenses from the state ledger.
Still no good. Partly because there may be just a handful of workers at the capitol who know what the governor’s doing, and the governor knows that. But mainly because your source—the news secretary—wanted it on deep background, and that means you don’t identify her at all.
A source in state government told me today that the governor has been writing checks for personal expenses from the state ledger.
No, and I hope that by now, you know why not.
We have learned that the governor has been writing checks for personal expenses from the state ledger.
Yes. Beyond the fact that the news secretary exposed his identity to you in the first place, this is obedient to his wishes, and the only way you are allowed to report the story, unless, as you already have learned now, you can confirm it with someone else who is willing to be named.
Background or, Not for Attribution
These phrases are interchangeable; they mean the same thing. They are not as limiting as “deep background,” but they do impose certain limits on the journalist.
So what do they mean? Well, the phrase “not for attribution” defines them: you cannot specifically attribute the information to your source, but for the sake of credibility, you can provide a general description.
For instance, let’s say the governor’s news secretary is your source for something less serious than the check-writing story used in examples above. Let’s say she tells you “on background” (or, “not for attribution”) that the Governor is about to ask your city’s mayor to be his lieutenant governor.
You still couldn’t report it this way:
The governor’s news secretary tells me the governor is about to ask Mayor …
Or, even this way:
A close aide to the governor tells me the governor is about to ask Mayor …
Why not? Because, although it’s subjective, that kind of attribution still makes the source to easy to identify. However—and here’s the difference between background and deep background—you are permitted to use your common sense and come up with a form of attribution general enough to protect the source, but specific enough to be credible. Such as:
A highly placed source in state government tells me the governor is about to ask Mayor …
Obviously, if the governor is angered by the leak, he probably can figure out who’s responsible. But in this hypothetical case, if the news secretary didn’t give you the information on deep background, let alone off the record, he must not be too concerned.
There also can be another explanation, which sometimes clarifies “background” information: maybe the governor wants the news to get out, but doesn’t yet want it to look like an official announcement. That’s why you’ll often read in reports from the nation’s capital about news from, for example, “a high State Department source.” That could be the secretary of state, who knows precisely what he’s doing, telling reporters what he wants them to know, but avoiding direct attribution.
What’s the Point?
Sometimes sources will want to put these limits on information they give you. If you want to use the information, you probably have to agree to their terms.
Making Sure You Know What to Tell and How to Tell It
Now that terms like “off the record” and “background” seem clear, let’s confuse them a bit! Just because you understand them, it doesn’t mean the source does. So when a story source wants to put restrictions on information to protect his or her identity, make sure you follow these four ground rules, for your protection:
1. When sources say something is “off the record,” or “on deep background,” or just “on background” or “not for attribution,” always ask what they mean. They might have a different definition than yours. Countless times I’ve had someone tell me something was “off the record,” only to learn after asking that all they meant was “not for attribution.”
2. A source might start a conversation by telling you the terms he requires. If so, make sure you clarify whether he means the entire conversation, or only the first part of it. If it’s only the first part, make sure you’re clear on where the restriction ends.
Or more often, a source will say at a certain stage of the interview, “Now this part is off the record,” or “not for attribution” or whatever. That makes the point where the restriction ends even more unclear. It’s up to you to clear it up by figuring out when the restricted part probably is finished and asking, “Are we back on the record?” or “Can I attribute this part?” or whatever.
3. Just because you’re talking with someone who tells you that something has one of these restrictions on it, you don’t have to agree to the terms. Simply put, you can say no, because you don’t want to be handcuffed that way. Of course it might mean your source stops talking, but sometimes, when a journalist refuses to accept such restrictions, the source—who wants to get the information out—will decide to say it openly.
4. One of the ground rules is that a source must place the restriction on information before revealing it. In other words, if someone gives you juicy information, then says something like, “By the way, that was not for attribution,” you can say something like, “Sorry, too late!” The game has to be played that way; otherwise, occasionally you will be saddled with restrictions on information that you would not have accepted.
The other side of the coin is, you might be dealing with someone relatively unsophisticated about privileged information and how to negotiate it, someone who doesn’t know the rules. So if a source tells you after the fact that something is restricted, you do indeed have the ethical right to refuse to accept the restriction, but you also might lose the help (and possibly the friendship) of this source in the future. It’s your judgment call.
Another reason to make sure you and your source are working with the same definitions: if you aren’t, and the source mistakenly believes from his definition that his identity will be a secret when your definition allows you to at least partially reveal it, he might sue you. And he might win.
What’s the Point?
Sometimes you must accept restrictions on information if you want the information at all. But you always have the right to say no, and to keep working other sources to find out what you’ve missed.
Exercises to Hold onto Your Sources__________
1. Holding an Embargo
In essay form, what does it mean when the governor’s news secretary tells you that the governor will announce his retirement from public service but tells you it is embargoed “until 3:00 tomorrow”?
What does it mean if you break the embargo?
When can you report the embargoed story? There are at least two answers; be thorough.
2. On the Record with Off the Record
One source tells you “on deep background” that the fire chief is aware of dangerously frayed fire hoses but isn’t demanding more money in his budget to replace them. Another source tells you the same thing “off the record.” In practical terms as a reporter, what’s the difference?
If you got just the “deep background” source, or just the “off the record” source, how would you report each?
3. Freedom of Choice
In essay form, what choices do you make when a source gives you information but puts restrictions on it, like “off the record,” “not for attribution,” or anything else?