When you should not name a news source

There are many occasions when a news source does not want to be named.

This is because the source fears that he or she may suffer if his or her identity gets known. In such cases, the reporter must respect the wishes of the source, and refer to the news source as reliable source, confidential source, source close to powers that be, well informed source, source that wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, etc

The other ways of referring to an anonymous source are:

a. As a common noun: “Critics say…”
b. As a pronoun: “Some charge that…”
c. As a passive voice: “It is suspected that…”, “Express has learnt that…”

This gives the news source the confidence to provide restricted or confidential information to the reporter. It also encourages other sources to divulge information because they believe that the reporter will respect their confidentiality.

At the same time, the reporter must examine the information provided by such a news source carefully. Some of the questions that a reporter should ask are: Is the information meant to malign an individual or an organization? Is it to run down a rival? Is it to create confusion? Is it to project an individual or an organization in a better light than they deserve? The answers to these questions will give the reporter a reason to use or reject the information.

Reporters who do not ask these questions run the risk of filing reports that are aimed to mislead the public. This happens especially when a source has personal or professional reasons to provide mischievous or misleading information. The aim of such activity, which is also called planting information, is to use the media to settle personal or professional scores.

Another aim of the reporter should be to balance information. The reporter must give the targeted individual or organization an opportunity to present its case. In journalistic parlance, this is known as giving both sides of the story.

Such an approach also gives the reporter an opportunity to examine the veracity or credibility of information provided by a news source that does not want to be named.

When using an anonymous source, the reporter also needs to ask if the information is available in any other way. If yes, then the reporter should take the route.

The reporter should also examine if information serves a greater good. If it does, then the reporter should certainly use the information provided by the anonymous source. Otherwise, the reporter can reject the information.