Attribution and Sourcing
The standards and practices have evolved over time and differ, sometimes dramatically, from medium to medium, from newspaper to newspaper, even from department to department.
Points of View:
(from the strictest to most relaxed)
1. Anything the reporter does not know first-hand by way of eye-witness experience or established knowledge must be attributed to a named source. 2.
3. Unnamed sources may be used, only as a last resort, if the information is of special public importance, if there is no other way to reveal it, if the source is reliable, and if the source’s biases are revealed. 4.
5. Excessive attribution clutters reports and narratives, especially when events not witnessed are reconstructed by reporting. It’s the reporter’s job to verify the story, to reveal all sources to the editor, and to attribute on a need-to-know basis for the reader. 6.
Problems to be Solved:
*Is it possible to create a culture in the centers of media power where there is not an over-reliance on anonymous sources?
*What can we do about getting politicians on the record, when various administrations establish the rules of engagement?
*How do newspapers reconcile their policies on sourcing with those of wire services?
*Can more methods be developed to explain to readers why anonymous sources occur in a story.
*Are there methods that reconcile the tension between attribution and clean narrative renditions? Footnotes, editors’ notes, website archives?
What’s at Stake?
*Well-sourced stories should be more credible.
*Stories may be well-sourced, but barely readable.
*The trust between reporter and editor depends on mutually agreed upon rituals of questioning and verification.
