Talking Media with Todd Stone of Rapp Strategies, Inc.

As political debate continues to polarize, some of the biggest controversies have been based on news reports that rely heavily on anonymous sources. For example, The Atlantic cited anonymous sources in a September report that alleged President Trump repeatedly made disparaging comments about military service. Much of the debate about the president’s alleged behavior focused on whether the report was accurate because critical sources weren’t identified.

It’s certainly fair for a news consumer to ask — how can I trust the reporting if I don’t know who the sources are? As a former journalist and senior newsroom editor, I have had to make the call on whether to allow information from anonymous sources to be used in news stories. Let me share a few thoughts about how using anonymous sources works in a newsroom.

Reporters know who their anonymous sources are: A common misconception is that reporters don’t know who their anonymous sources. Reporters definitely know their sources. They can’t rely on information if they don’t know where it is coming from. Sure, you can get an anonymous tip or message. But that’s simply the beginning of the reporting process that may eventually include anonymous sources. 

Anonymous sources are the last option, not the first: Credible reporting demands transparency. The more a reporter can specifically lay out the facts, the more impactful and trusted the news story. That includes citing all sources — data, documents and individuals — that fuel the news report and its conclusions. Anonymous sources are usually a last resort, when there’s no other way to get the information.

When to use an anonymous source: Most often, sources are unnamed if revealing them would jeopardize their employment, their safety or the safety of a family member. 

Yes, anonymous sources have their own motives and agendas: A reporter must weigh those motivations with the need for the public to know the information. It’s never easy, which is why senior editors must approve because the stakes are usually high.

The Golden Rule — two sources: In most cases, newsrooms require a second corroborating source before publication. This is an essential step to verifying the reliability of the information that you’re about to report. Sometimes an exception is made when a source is uniquely close to the situation or issue. Further, reporters must share the identity of the source to at least one senior editor for approval before publication.

The Golden Rule continues to evolve as the race to be first online intensifies, especially during major breaking news events. Some reporters will cite a single anonymous source, then update later. But news organizations that have the discipline to follow the two-source standard consistently produce stronger, more reliable reporting.

Of course, even with these standards, it doesn’t guarantee all reporting with anonymous sources is 100% accurate. For the reader, anonymous sources can be frustrating, because they want to know who is providing the information. 

Here are some factors to consider when assessing the reliability of an article with anonymous sources:

1) Track record of the publication: Does the outlet have a strong history of reliable and impactful journalism?

2) Background of the reporter(s): Consider the strength of past work, awards and experience.

3) Reason for anonymity: Does the reporter characterize the source’s credibility (“senior official,” for example) and explain why the source requires anonymity?

4) Impact and clarity: Does the article explain why the information from anonymous sources is important and revelatory?

5) Fair response: Are opposing sides given an opportunity to challenge the findings from anonymous sources? Are those responses persuasive?

6) Check other news outlets: Are various news reports confirming the information?

As a communications strategy, it’s rarely a good idea to be an anonymous source on behalf of an organization. Anonymity is for whistleblowers, not for companies or other organizations who have a credible story to tell. When a reporter calls, you should strongly consider taking the interview if you authorized to speak on behalf of the organization. 

After all, if you don’t tell your side of the story, someone else will do it for you. 

Guidelines for journalistic standards

Todd Stone is the senior director at Rapp Strategies and leads the firm’s media relations work. He has worked in editing positions at five of the 30 largest daily newspapers in the U.S. He can be reached at toddstone@rappstrategies.com.