Unreliable ‘reliable source’

Herbie Gomez

THERE are times when the only way a story teller can connect the dots is to use important information from people, highly placed and with insider information, who agree to speak on condition of anonymity. This is an acceptable but not really an encouraged practice in journalism.

The use of anonymous sources has had its ups and downs. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post used information from “Deep Throat” in their Watergate scandal stories that led to the resignation of US President Richard Nixon. Yet years later, The Post, which printed the Woodward-Bernstein Watergate exposé, found itself carrying Janet Cooke’s infamous fiction about a pseudonymous eight-year-old heroin addict that everyone had thought, at first, to be journalism work. Cooke won a Pulitzer for her fabricated report, and later returned the award. So you see, it could go either way.

The Society of Professional Journalists puts it this way: “Anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to unlocking that big story, throwing back the curtain on corruption, fulfilling the journalistic missions of watchdog on the government and informant to the citizens. But sometimes, anonymous sources are the road to the ethical swamp.”

While the practice is allowed in journalism, anonymous sources are supposed to be used sparingly and only in situations when there is no other way to get the needed information. But when someone uses unnamed “reliable sources” every time he tells a story, when it becomes habitual, then red flags have to be raised. It’s very likely that the story teller who has become so accustomed to using unnamed sources is too lazy to look for credible sources of information or is merely fabricating a story. I mean, how is it possible for anyone to use unnamed people as his only sources of information every time he tells a story?

And if I may ask, exactly how reliable are these “reliable sources”? What assurance do people at the receiving end have that the “reliable source” is not a polluted source with an ax to grind and therefore, not reliable, or that the unnamed source of the story teller is not himself? What assurance do people have that the story is not just the product of a degenerating brain or a rascal with a pregnant imagination?

No, text messages sent by unknown smart phone users aren’t credible. And it is not enough to just reveal the phone numbers because, nowadays, SIM cards can be bought from sari-sari stores and then discarded like baby diapers.

Information from unnamed sources can prove to be useful at times but not all the time, and these cannot, in any way, pass off as proof. Try bringing information from a nameless “reliable source” to a courtroom and let’s see if the judge doesn’t give the lawyer a mouthful.

As the debate on the use of anonymous sources rages on, newsrooms are beginning to put in place safeguards against abuse. One is that editors, or at least one of them, should know who the anonymous source is for purposes of ascertaining credibility while respecting confidentiality and ensuring that information about the source’s credibility doesn’t leak out. This way, editors would be able to determine if the reason for the request for anonymity is valid or not. It is valid if the information that the source revealed would put lives in danger or he would lose his job. But there is a very serious question on credibility if it’s merely a case of sour grapes (e.g. a man saying he didn’t want a date with a woman because she was a bit overweight after she chose to go out with another man) or if the source is a black propagandist or, worse, if the source is merely the story teller’s imaginary friend.

Councilor Leon Gan can be amusing at times. I nearly fell from my seat while reading a report about Gan’s speech before the city council last week. The councilor cited his unnamed “reliable sources” and attempted to corroborate his story by citing a column that also cited unnamed “reliable sources.” Yeah right, like adding the adjective “reliable” to the word “sources” would make up for his inability to name the sources of information and turn any assertion he makes into solid evidence. I’m glad Gan is neither a journalist nor a columnist. But then, he calls himself a lawyer. Pastilan.