Anonymous sources and news credibility

He was the most famous anonymous source of all time, if thatmakes any sense. A lot of people still believe that if Deep Throat hadn'tprovided Woodward and Bernstein with crucial information, the Watergatecover-up would never have been reported, and Richard Nixon would have served outhis second term as U.S. president. As it turns out, Deep Throat (later revealedto be former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt) played a critical role inverifying information the two reporters uncovered elsewhere, but that doesn'tminimize his role in uncovering the biggest scandal in American politicalhistory.

I know a lot of our listeners and viewers bristle at the useof anonymous sources in our reporting. In fact, we wish we never had to. Publicopinion research shows that their use - and over-use - affects the credibilityof journalism, and this issue is a significant and ongoing one for everyoneengaged in journalism. But we have to withhold the identity of sources onoccasion, especially because of our role as a public broadcaster.

Our mission is to inform, to reveal, to contribute to theunderstanding of issues of public interest and to encourage citizens toparticipate in our free and democratic society. Our ability to protect sourcesallows people with important information to come forward and expose matters ofpublic interest. If we do not properly protect our confidential sources,potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to exposeabuses of power.

As I mentioned, we don't grant anonymity lightly. It's aprinciple of good journalism that the public be able to see the person makingstatements or allegations, so that they can decide for themselves thecredibility of that individual. At the same time, some information is importantenough that it's worth compromising that principle--somewhat--if that's theonly way to get that information before the public.

Let me give you some recent examples of stories that couldonly be told, in part, by using anonymous sources. A nurse was willing to speakto CBC News about conditions in her hospital. She came forward as part of CBC's"Rate My Hospital" series and could provide important details andinsights. But she feared that if her face appeared on camera or her full namewas used in a radio or online story, she would face reprisals at work, even theloss of her job.

Cases like this arise on a regular basis at CBC News, as wework to provide Canadians with the original stories they won't find elsewhereand the depth and detail they expect from us. Often, the people with keyinformation have something important to lose if they're seen to be sharing itwith us.

That's why we have a set of rules, known as our JournalisticStandards and Practices, and a formal process, for dealing with such cases.When CBC journalists have a request not to name a source, they refer the matterto our Director of Journalistic Standards and Practices, whose job it is toweigh the issue and see if it satisfies the JSP requirements

In the case of the nurse, the Director asks the journalist anumber of questions. Are we confident that her information is accurate? Couldwe get it another way, say from someone else who wouldn't require concealment?Is there any ulterior motive? Is the nurse's fear of reprisal realistic? Can weverify the claims another way, or, as in the Watergate example, is our sourcecorroborating what we've uncovered elsewhere? Once he has his answers, theDirector makes the call. If it's a story with major implications, that decisionis mine.

In this case, we decided that hearing directly "fromthe ward floor" was sufficiently important to respect the nurse's requestto have her identity hidden, and that's how the story ran. Other, similarrequests that very week were turned down, and our journalists had to find otherways to tell the story. It's all part of our effort to bring Canadians thebest... and the most... news, according to our best-practice protocols.

That's just one recent example. Last season on Marketplace,we granted anonymity to a hospital cleaner who was concerned that cutbacks werejeopardizing the safety of patients. After the story was broadcast, a hospitalgroup promised to overhaul its practices to prevent the spread of infectiousdiseases.

This past season on the fifth estate, we agreed to concealthe identity of a longtime companion of Luka Magnotta, for the episode"Hunting Magnotta". The source feared retribution and loss ofemployment if his name and face were revealed His contribution to the showprovided unique insight into the cold and narcissistic personality of Magnotta.

In that same piece, we obscured the identities of two peoplewho 'hunted' Magnotta - online sleuths who tracked him and warned authoritiesabout his behaviour. Their condition for participating in the story was to havetheir identities withheld - it's the only way they can continue to pursue theironline work. One had been threatened online by someone she believed wasMagnotta, who said he would "find her."

We concluded that in all these cases, the concerns aboutemployment, harassment and safety, were real. Combined with the value of theinformation we couldn't have obtained in other ways, we felt the measures wetook were justified. Some news organizations, particularly in the UnitedStates, have banned the use of anonymous sources, but I think our judicious useof them, backed by our extensive system of checks and balances, is necessaryfor us to provide you with the type and quality of journalism you've come to expectfrom CBC News.