Anonymous sources are here to stay. But we’ll be more careful about them.

Image credit: patila / 123RF Stock Photo.

So, this happened. It wasn’t a proud moment for us, and the next few days were spent soul-searching and evaluating how we can improve.

Anonymous sources can reveal true but otherwise unobtainable stories about the tech industry. We’ve broken numerous stories this way: the shutdown of SPH Plug and Play, the pivoting of a logistics startup, the implosion of a near-unicorn, Intel’s internet of things flop, and more.

Yet anonymous sourcing can also be a ticking time bomb. It can explode in our faces, and people would question our credibility. Even the New York Times, winner of 119 Pulitzer Prizes and citations, is not immune. They did some soul searching of their own over two botched stories that relied on unnamed informants.

So we revised our guidelines, and we’re sharing them with you below. In short: we will continue to rely on anonymous sources. However, we’ll be more careful about them. We’d rather let stories go than publish those that risk hurting our relationship with the audience.

Guidelines on scoops

Types of sources

Firsthand: people who have direct experience and knowledge of the subject.

Secondhand: people who have information from someone with firsthand experience and expertise.

Thirdhand: people who have heard about it from people with second-hand information

Any information that is thirdhand is considered a rumor or hearsay.

Clarify: Is it off or on the record. Do the interviewees want to be anonymous?

A source speaking to a reporter should always assume that everything is on the record. If the source wants the information kept off the record, they should indicate so before they say something.

We are under no obligation to keep things under the lid once the sources disclose information on an on-the-record basis. But in the event they do ask something to be kept off the record – right in the middle or right after the interview – we ask which information that is, specifically.

If a source tells us before an interview that the information is off the record, everything stays off the record. We cannot write about it. Some journalists play fast and loose with this rule, but we can’t be like them.

When unsure, we ask the source straight if we can write about it or not. If not, we ask the source to recommend anyone who may be more likely to speak on the record or look for those people ourselves.

If a source shares with us information on the record but asks not to be named, that means we can write about it without revealing who the source is.

Verify rumors

Journalists should practice discretion with regards to rumors. If a reliable source comes to us with second and thirdhand information, it’s a tip we will most likely pursue.

But we keep in mind: verify second and thirdhand information from a firsthand source. The stuff that comes from an eyewitness is always better than the rest.

If we’re verifying a rumor from a reliable source, the standard is to confirm with at least one firsthand source before we report about it.

Press sources hard

We listen to what our sources have to say but take it with a grain of salt. We press them on what exactly they know and how they know it and ask them for evidence to support their claims: documents, company filings or internal announcements, email threads, text messages, and more. This is how we analyze whether a source is firsthand or not.

We think about our sources’ biases. What motivated them to leak the information? Is the source targeting an individual or a group, and if so, how does the person benefit? If we can verify the information from neutral voices, we do so.

Always attribute the information to sources

We do not speculate. We keep our writing fair and balanced.

Particularly in cases where it’s impossible to verify the truthfulness of a certain information, it’s important to use the words “alleged(ly)”, “supposed(ly)”, “reported(ly)” in the story. This is usually the case when the story happened between or among only two to three people who have direct knowledge of the subject (for example: the Grabgas controversy).

We present the facts as clearly as we can and don’t use vague words. (for example: instead of saying “a large” or “a measly amount”, put the exact amount there).

Use anonymous sources as last resort

In the past, we published information from anonymous sources and those information were either wrong or speculative. It put a strain on our credibility.

Hence, citing anonymous sources must be a last resort: when it’s impossible for the source to go on the record without jeopardizing his or her career, or when there’s no other way to publish information that’s newsworthy and reliable. By reliable, we mean the information came from a source with firsthand, direct knowledge or we have additional evidence to back the information from the source.

In instances we feel the scoop will be damaging rather than helpful to our credibility, we let it go.

More guidelines on anonymously sourced stories

• Any story whose central fact or lead is based on anonymous sources must be presented in advance to the managing editor and scoops I/C for approval. They must know the identities of the sources.

• Every other use of anonymous sourcing anywhere in the story must be approved by Terence, Judith and the editor/s handling the story.

• Anonymous sources must be described in as much detail without revealing so much that we identify them. Avoid phrases like “Tech in Asia has learned from a reliable source,” or “says a source familiar with the matter”. Who is that source? Is he a company insider? An executive or an employee who has direct knowledge of what happened? Does he have a copy of the document? Was he in the meeting when the information was revealed? We get the source to agree on those descriptions.

• We explain to the readers why we can’t publish the source’s name. Will he be harmed by the publication of his name? How? We tell the readers the source’s motivation for sharing the information. Let the readers judge the source’s credibility themselves.

• Limit the use of direct quotes from sources. Use direct quotes only if necessary. Evaluate how factual the quotes are and make sure they’re not speculative. Sources who ask for anonymity give up the right to have their speculations or opinions reflected in our stories.

• No attacks, opinions, or speculations from anonymous sources allowed.

Get a response

One way to verify information about a company, a group, or an individual is to ask them to confirm or deny it, respond, or make a comment.

It’s vital to get their side of the story especially if we’re writing something awful or may be deemed defamatory.

They could deny the information we have – but that doesn’t mean it’s not true or it didn’t happen.

So we check all the facts in our story, collate evidence to support the claims (if any), and ask for a response to each item – we don’t just verify the meat of the story.

If it’s a he-said-she-said case, we should be balanced and present both sides.

We give parties a decent amount of time to respond.

For non-controversial stories, we give the parties 12 hours to respond before publishing. For highly sensitive or controversial stories, it’s 24 hours. The timer starts when we seek comment from them.

The practice is to say:

“We hope to receive your response within the next 12 (24) hours. If we don’t, we will go ahead with the article and indicate to our readers that we didn’t receive a response from you.”

But if it’s a weekend, you may say:

“We’d appreciate if you can give us your response by 3 pm SGT on Monday, January 23. If we don’t, we will go ahead with the article and indicate to our readers that we didn’t receive a response from you.”

However, if the parties ask for more time to respond, it’s up to the discretion of the writer and the editor handling the story. We may agree to the request but set a deadline.

We exhaust all efforts to get their responses: text, call, email, all messaging apps.

If they do not respond, we state that we asked for their comments multiple times but didn’t receive a response. If they do answer but decline to comment, we say they declined.

Ask for thorough edits

A reporter that got a scoop should consult with his or her immediate supervisor or the scoops I/C in pursuing the story.

After the reporter drafts it, the supervisor or the scoops I/C will do the first round of edits to expose errors or gaps in the story. If the story is highly sensitive and may be damaging to the reputation of a certain party, the scoops I/C and the managing editor must approve the story.

Also, in editing highly-sensitive stories, editors should consult with the reporter about any changes to the information the writer cites from sources. Editors don’t know the issue as well as the reporter does. Editors must explain what’s wrong, and the journalist rewrites that part and asks for another edit.

Updating with a response

If responses to our questions come after we’ve published the piece, we specify it in the story:

“In a response to Tech in Asia a day after publishing this…”

At the bottom of the story, we add a note about the updates we made:

“(Update: Added quotes from the CEO and embedded screenshots of documents he provided.)”

Making corrections

We exercise maximum transparency and state what we said wrong. A note at the bottom of the article should read:

“(Correction: The original article said the CEO… That is not accurate and has been removed.)”

“(Correction: The original article said the funding round was… That is now corrected.)”

---

We hope that these guidelines will strengthen the quality of reporting at Tech in Asia. These standards in themselves are insufficient. What matters is that we’re disciplined about them. It’s better to challenge a piece in the newsroom than have it challenged in the court of public opinion.

This post Anonymous sources are here to stay. But we’ll be more careful about them. appeared first on Tech in Asia.

from Tech in Asia https://www.techinasia.com/tech-asia-tightens-anonymous-sourcing-guidelines
via IFTTT