When you can’t take a gander at the source

Press, 25 May 1984, Page 14

When you can’t take a gander at the source

From

MIKE FEINSILBER,

Associated

Press, in Washington

He’s in the newspaper every day, but readers don’t know his name. Some people wonder if he really exists, or if he’s telling the truth, or if he has an axe to grind. Sometimes he is a woman, but you never know, because he is an “anonymous source.”

It has become common nowadays to read in news reports phrases like: “A government official who spoke only on condition that he not be identified,” or “A military source who requested anonymity for security reasons.” In Washington, much information is put out on that basis. It is a practice that makes readers suspicious and journalists uneasy. Stories without named attribution raise credibility questions.

How do readers know the reporter didn’t write fiction and attribute it to “an administration source”? How can they judge the truthfulness of what they read if they don’t know the source?

Despite these questions, the practice has become so entrenched that it has almost become second nature to reporters and newsmakers alike.

In fact, the United States State Department has a memo called “Guidelines for talking with the press,” which has made official the hitherto informal, verbal rules that guided reporters and newsmakers.

The memo spells out four categories for dealing with reporters’ questions: 1. “On the record.” That means the source can be quoted by name and title.

2. “Background.” The reporter can attribute the news to “State Department officials,” “United States officials,” “Administration sources” or "diplomatic sources,” or a variation of those.

3. “Deep background.” The writer cannot even hint at his source. He must write the story without attribution or with some vague phrase like, “It is understood ...” or “It has been learned ...”

4. “Off the record.” The information cannot be used at all.

The memo says that “Background” is the most common basis on which to talk t<t reporters. “As a general proposition, and

with the exception of the department spokesman, officers are on the record only in speeches, congressional testimony, or in formal press conferences," it says. “If, however, you are satisfied that what you are saying expresses our policy.” the author — anonymous, of course — of the guidelines wrote, “my view is that senior officers in particular need not shrink from staying on the record.” Readers might assume that “an official who asked not to be identified” was a “leaker,” putting out news that would get him in trouble if his name were revealed. That’s sometimes, but not usually, the case. More often the source is an official, sometimes quoted by name elsewhere in the same news story, who has information that he considers too sensitive, for reasons of his own. to have directly attributed to him. Some news organisations instruct their reporters to urge sources to speak on the record. If the source declines, the reporter must tell the reader that the source insisted on anonymity. Officials speak to reporters on a not-for-attribution basis for a variety of reasons, not all of them altruistic. They want to give their views exposure. They want to float trial balloons. They want to sell reporters and readers on what they see as the indisputable logic of their behaviour. Or they just consider the information they are giving too sensitive to put out on any other basis. Often, the anonymous source is someone at the very top. John Hughes, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and former diplomatic correspondent for the “Christian Science Monitor,” discussed the practice of “going on background" in an interview.

“It simply affords the opportunity to be a little more forthcoming, a'little more direct, without causing diplomatic embarrassment,” Hughes said. “It’s a way where an official can be a little franker, give a little more background to a situation that he could not if he’s going to be quoted by name and title and be held accountable.” *