On 29 May 2003 BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan reported on Radio 4’s Today programme that a ‘senior British official’ had told him the British government's dossier on Iraq had been ‘transformed in the week before it was published to make it sexier’ and build a stronger case for war. The unnamed source was Dr David Kelly and Gilligan’s report nearly brought the BBC and the British government to their knees.

In a post-Hutton environment the media’s use of anonymous sources has come under increasing scrutiny. Anonymity gives sources the ability to distance themselves from a story if necessary. But should journalists differentiate between the demands of Whitehall officials and those of genuine whistleblowers?

The public editor of The New York Times, Daniel Okrent, told LA Weekly: ‘I hate unattributed sources and think they’re absolutely necessary to journalism. I know that sounds like a terrible contradiction, but I have no other way of addressing it. They are used too much. They undermine the credibility of journalists and publications. On the other hand, if you did not have any unattributed sources, you would have very few whistleblowers.’ 

Journalist, author and film-maker John Pilger says anonymous sources are essential to investigative journalism but recognises an ethical difference between granting anonymity to officials and allowing whistleblowers the same privilege. He says: ‘Politicians are elected to be accountable — at least they should be — and have no right to engage in undemocratic, secretive manipulation. Whistleblowers often reveal something that is vital to the public interest: the sort of thing that politicians conceal. They have the right to be protected. But I think it is a 100 per cent true that the public want names when politicians are being quoted without attribution.’

The rush to get exclusives

Author and former BBC political correspondent Nicholas Jones believes unattributed quotes are appearing more frequently in hard news stories. Jones says: ‘The Blair government has brought in a large number of special advisers, many of whom are spin doctors. They have always traded information on an anonymous basis. The same thing happens with officials who like to use anonymity to get information out which may, or may not, be true. I started as a journalist in the 1960s and it was very difficult to get a story into a local or national paper unless you had attributed people speaking. Competition has increased phenomenally now and today’s journalists are judged on their ability to deliver exclusive stories. This has led to a change in culture where journalists think it is nothing exceptional to make up quotes to brighten their stories and I think that is a significant change. The trend has gone too far and it is worrying that in the rush to get exclusives this is what journalists are prepared to do.’
 

Jones raises a valid point. In March last year it was revealed that Jack Kelley, a Pulitzer Prize nominated journalist for USA Today, had fabricated and embellished several of his stories. His case finds an echo in that of Jayson Blair. In May 2003 Blair, a star reporter on The New York Times, resigned after admitting to faking quotes and even entire interviews. The New York Times now demands that its reporters reveal an unnamed source’s identity to a ranking editor. However, exceptions can be made in cases that involve ‘crucial issues of law or national security in which sources face dire consequences if exposed’.

David Shayler, a former member of MI5, the British security service, was prosecuted and convicted under the Official Secrets Act for passing classified information and documents to the Mail on Sunday in 1997. Shayler sees the use of unattributed quotes and anonymous sources as part of a decline in journalistic practices due to commercial pressures. He says: ‘This is part of a bigger picture. It is part of the whole issue of ethics in journalism. I worked on The Sunday Times and I’ve worked with newspapers covering my story. I don’t think there are any ethics in British journalism. All the media understands is how to shift units.’ Shayler argues that, wherever possible, whistleblowers should stand up and be counted but he is aware that many do fear the consequences of being identified. ‘I think the ideal is to have people on the record all the time. But the problem in Britain is that we have draconian secrecy laws. Any official who talks to the press could be breaking the law. From that point of view we do need to protect whistleblowers.

Lack of legal protection for whistleblowers

Katharine Gun worked as a translator for GCHQ, the British Government’s eavesdropping centre. In 2003, in the weeks leading up to the Iraq War, she revealed that the American National Security Agency had asked the British Government to assist in the illegal surveillance of the UN Security Council. Gun was arrested and charged under the Official Secrets Act with disclosing secret information. The case against her was dropped in February 2004. She believes the lack of legal protection offered to whistleblowers lies at the heart of the anonymity issue.

Gun says: ‘I was deliberately anonymous when I made my leak, even the Observer didn’t know who I was. The issue of whistleblower protection is important here. If whistleblowers felt they were not putting themselves at disproportionate risk, then protection might not be such a necessity. In a truly open and responsible democracy whistleblowers would not have to fear retaliation. There is a distinction between a whistleblower and an off the record briefing. If civil servants are in the habit of briefing misleadingly then it is up to the journalist to judge accordingly. It is the same with intelligence gathering; how much can you trust your source? To the public if the source is hidden, there is no way to judge their validity and journalists must reflect this in their reporting.’

Robert Fisk, Middle Eastern correspondent for the Independent, says dealing with off the record stories from government officials or ministers can present its own difficulties. The decision not to publish an unattributed quote could mean concealing an important story from the public. According to Fisk part of the problem is that journalists encounter many kinds of anonymous sources from terrified dissidents living in repressive regimes to self-serving government officials. ‘You have to be judicious about this. Some people will die if you name them but government officials will not die if you name them. There is no perfect answer to this is there? You have to trust your source don’t you? You have to know who he is. If your source is some psychological operations general then, frankly, I think you should dump him. If your source is a frightened family living under a dictatorship telling you about torture then you have to take into account what they say. They are taking a risk to tell you in the first place so they are probably telling you the truth.’

Preserving the fourth estate role

In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers — a collection of classified documents detailing US military activities in Vietnam — to the American media. Their publication contributed to the erosion of public support for the Vietnam War and led to a campaign by Nixon’s White House to discredit assault or assassinate Ellsberg. For Ellsberg the defining characteristic of a whistleblower is that they are speaking without authorisation. He argues that as sources they offer stories or perspectives their superiors or agencies would never willingly release. ‘In these cases the disclosure is unauthorised and that means it is dangerous for the subordinate who will be punished if their disclosure is discovered. To get their information and a perspective of how things are seen on the inside, or what the real facts are, journalists must ensure that whistleblowers’ identities can be concealed.’

Ellsberg believes whistleblowers are essential to journalistic freedom and the preservation of the media’s fourth estate role. In 2004 he set up The Truth-Telling Project, which encourages US officials to blow the whistle on government wrongdoing.  He says: ‘Without unauthorised disclosures you are just reprinting official handouts and that is nothing but propaganda. If a journalist is content with that then they are simply acknowledging they are a willing and conscious part of a propaganda apparatus.’

Sheila Gunn is a former political correspondent for The Times. In 1995 she was appointed as personal press adviser to the then Prime Minister John Major. She is currently a political affairs consultant, Camden councillor and the Conservative Party’s candidate for Slough in the recent general election. Gunn says stories based upon anonymous sources increase public cynicism as they create an impression of a cosy relationship between journalists and politicians. She also believes journalists could do more to minimise the risk of being misled by officials.

‘Too many journalists don’t bother to check out stories or do a bit more digging and hence risk being “used” by informants – often party spin doctors – or presenting slanted stories. I have always warned politicians, including John Major, never to say anything to a journalist that they don’t want to see splashed across the front page of the Sun. However, I can’t say I kept to that rule myself. Journalists should report for their audience rather than for their news desks. Producers and editors should monitor their journalists output of stories with little or no attribution and trust them a little more when they refuse to play the spin doctors’ games The media should refuse to betray genuine whistleblowers who are prepared to risk their careers in the greater public interest even if it means the journalists or editor risking a jail sentence. After all, that’s a great scoop in itself!’

Journalist jailed

In the United States two journalists were recently found guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose the identity of a source. The case against Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine started in October 2004 when syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote that Valerie Plame the wife of former US diplomat Joseph Wilson was a CIA operative. The source for the story also contacted Miller and Cooper. Miller, who did not publish the information, was controversially jailed by a federal judge on 6 July while Cooper escaped imprisonment by agreeing to testify. Novak was continuing to refuse to comment on his legal position.

Eason Jordan a former CNN chief news executive was less fortunate than the Plame source. In January speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, he said he believed it was official US military policy to target journalists.

The essential dilemmas

It is WEF policy that all sessions are off the record but a blogger, Rony Abovitz, posted Jordan’s comments on the internet and a website was launched to petition for a full transcript of the session. Jordan resigned in February to spare CNN’s blushes.

In some instances it can be argued there is a definite and pressing need for anonymity. But there can be little doubt that a growing army of Whitehall officials, agencies and politicians now insist on off the record press briefings. The dilemma facing journalists in these cases is complex .Refusing to publish without attribution could mean hiding an important story from readers, but naming a source would mean never using them again. But is journalism’s first duty to its sources or to its audience? There are no easy answers. Studies have shown that readers find unattributed quotes less credible but it may be difficult for journalists to gain a higher level of public trust unless they address their use of anonymous sources and unattributed quotes.

Also published in Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics http://www.ethicalspace.org