0:00
[MUSIC]
We have talked a lot about trust in this specialization.
Now, we want to talk about trust but in a different kind of relationship.
That is the important relationship between journalists and their sources.
For some reports, the nature of the information the source is telling us
is such that the source seeks protection.
Why this protection, you ask?
There can be a number of reasons.
One very simple reason could be that a person who talks,
such as a whistle blower, could endanger their job.
An even more serious reason might be that by speaking out,
the source could face criminal prosecution.
And in the most extreme cases, sources could jeopardize their safety or
the safety of people close to them, if they are connected to your report.
But let's not agree to protect them lightly because
not only is there a risk to them, but there's also a risk to the journalist.
Some sources will want to use the cloak of anonymity, that is the reporters
protection to hide from statements they make when there is no real danger to them.
Then you are bound and your audience is left in the dark.
You, the journalist, are being used in a case like that.
Here's how this can work.
A source asks to have their identity protected and
makes a statement that is perhaps a test of an idea.
The source wants to see whether this idea is accepted in the public.
If it is accepted, they can claim credit for the idea.
If the public does not like the idea, the source is not connected with it and
this becomes a trial balloon.
You can prevent being used this way if you weigh carefully the real danger in
what they are telling you,.
These kinds of requests are happening more and
more often maybe because people are now seeing journalists portrayed in movies and
on TV and they see this negotiation and this anonymity.
It could also be that people are just reading news reports
about cases where sources are protected.
Secrecy requests put journalists smack in the middle of a struggle between
protecting the identity of the sources and
telling readers where information comes from.
It's the transparency idea we talked about earlier, and it can be a tough call.
When the information is important and
the only way to get to it is to promise anonymity, the reporter can do that.
But has to do that with the agreement of supervisors,
if there are any within the organization.
If it's just you, you don't have a supervisor of course.
But it can't be a promise made by one person
inside the organization because it binds the entire organization.
In every case, protecting a source does not mean that editors will not be told.
They must be told.
It is safest to not make secrecy deals on the fly but to get others,
like your news producer or your editor, involved before you agree.
When a source asks for this kind of protection, slow down, do it carefully.
There have been cases when journalists have gone to jail because they refused
a judge's order to reveal who their sources were.
Some went to jail for a long time.
On the other side of the coin, news organizations have been sued
because someone broke the journalist's promise and revealed who the source was.
When a journalist makes this promise, it is a binding contract.
And to break it can be against the law as well.
To review, we suggest that you promise to protect the source's identity
only in the rarest cases.
That you know what the reason is and that it is a really good reason.
You should not make this promise unless the information is so
important and the threat to the source so
real, that you are ready to go to jail to hold the secret.
In many places there is no legal protection for journalists who make
the promise and put themself at risk protecting the safety of others.
They have no protection from the courts.
The protection we are talking about is called a journalist shield law.
If the issue comes up,
you should check to see whether there are shield laws where you operate.
And we recommend that you also talk to journalists who have been through this.
They will be more than likely to talk about their experience.
Before we close we want to give you a strategy.
It is this.
When a source asks for this kind of protection,
be very specific with the source about how long you'll keep them protected.
In some cases, sources will ask you to keep them protected right up to the point
where a judge says the reporter must go to jail if they don't reveal the source.
This is serious but highly unlikely.
At that point if you sign an agreement with the source, and
we do recommend that you have a signed agreement,
you will be free to reveal who the source is and stay out of jail.
[MUSIC]
Joanne GerstnerSports Journalist in Residence
Jeremy SteeleSpecialist
David PoulsonInstructor
Eric FreedmanInstructor
Joe GrimmInstructor
Lucinda D. DavenportDirector & Professor
