Richard M. Smith, editor-in-chief of Newsweeek, writes a Letter to Readers in the new issue (dated May 30.) It raises the bar:
* “We will raise the standards for the use of anonymous sources throughout the magazine…. From now on, only the editor or the managing editor, or other top editors they specifically appoint, will have the authority to sign off on the use of an anonymous source.”
* “The cryptic phrase ‘sources said’ will never again be the sole attribution for a story in Newsweek.” The magazine will try to tell readers why the source is in a position to know.
* “Tacit affirmation, by anyone, no matter how highly placed or apparently knowledgeable, will not qualify as a secondary source.”
* “We are committed to holding stories for as long as necessary in order to be confident of the facts. If that puts us at a competitive disadvantage on any particular story, so be it.”
Excellent rules-of-thumb, all. We would add two suggestions:
1 – Return to the much-cited but seldom-used two-source rule for every anonymous accusation that you print. And that doesn’t mean one source plus a second source who confirms “by not denying;” it means a second source that affirms the information passed on by the first source. That simple procedure would have stopped not just Newsweek‘s “Koran-flushed-down-the-toilet” item in its tracks, it would also have saved CBS from going on the air last fall with documents whose provenance could not be proved.
2 – Inform each and every one of your anonymous sources that if you, the reporter, get burned by bum information foisted on you (and, by extension, onto your readers) all bets are off, and you will unclothe that source in public.
True, # 2 will strike some as a dire measure. But these are dire times for the credibility of the corporate media titans that not so long ago were considered the bulwarks of journalistic standards. Maybe it’s time to get some — journalistic standards, that is.
–Steve Lovelady
Steve Lovelady was editor of CJR Daily.