“A senior diplomatic official said,” “a security official says,” “a source familiar with the details claims,” and “those close to the minister believe.” We hear and read phrases like these almost every day. They are sometimes followed by dramatic revelations, but one detail is missing: Who exactly is speaking to us?
The public is asked to accept information from an unknown person without knowing that person’s position or interests, whether they were present at the event they are describing or, most importantly, why they decided to share the information at that particular moment.
It is important to be clear: Confidential sources are essential to a free press. Journalists cannot do their jobs if everyone who provides them with information must be publicly identified.
Whistleblowers, public employees, and people working within large organizations sometimes need protection to bring important information to the public’s attention.
But there is a difference between protecting a source and turning anonymity into a standard practice.
Behind some of these unnamed “officials” is a well-oiled system for delivering carefully crafted messages. Politicians, advisers, security officials, associates, and other interested parties know they do not need to hold a news conference to influence the public agenda. Sometimes, a single phone call to a reporter is enough.
That is where a complicated relationship begins. The source needs the journalist to publish the information. The journalist needs the source to obtain information that competitors do not have. Both have an interest in the relationship, but their interests are not necessarily the same. The journalist wants a story. The source wants to achieve a goal.
That goal might be to damage a political opponent, prepare the ground for an impending decision, pressure decision makers, test the public’s response to an idea, or avoid responsibility for a failure.
In other words, a leak sometimes does not tell us what happened. It is intended to make something happen.
That is precisely the question a journalist must ask before publishing. The question should not only be, “Is the information true?” It should also be, “Why does this person want me to publish it?”
Even true information can be manipulative when it is incomplete. A source may provide one entirely accurate detail from a closed meeting while omitting five others that would change its meaning. Was a lie published? No. Did the public receive the full picture? No.
A leak can be accurate in its details yet misleading in the picture it creates.
The problem becomes more serious when anonymous information begins to circulate. A reporter publishes something attributed to “a senior official.” Another news outlet cites the report. From there, it spreads to social media and television studios. Before long, commentators are explaining the significance of a report when no one outside a small circle knows who is behind it.
The rumor has put on a suit and tie and become news.
The competition to be first only adds to the problem.
Competition among journalists has always existed and always will. Journalists want to break stories, and rightly so. But the public usually does not care whether it receives a report at 8:01 p.m. or 8:07 p.m. It does care enormously if those six minutes could have been used to verify that the information was true, complete, and accurate.
The public is not sitting with a stopwatch. Editors also bear considerable responsibility. Is one anonymous source enough? Was the information confirmed by another source? Was the person who could be harmed by the report given an opportunity to respond? Most importantly, does the public have a genuine interest in knowing the information, or is the media helping someone conduct a campaign through its platforms?
A news organization does not have to reveal a source’s identity to tell readers something about the source’s credibility. There is a meaningful difference between the vague phrase “a source said” and an explanation that the source has firsthand knowledge of the discussions, is not authorized to speak publicly, and provided information that was independently verified.
The more anonymous the source, the greater the journalist’s responsibility.
Politicians and public officials also find this system convenient. They can deliver a forceful message without publicly taking responsibility for it. If the message is well received, they can adopt it. If it causes an uproar, they can deny it, distance themselves from it, or claim it was not delivered on behalf of the authorized official.
This creates a politics of trial balloons.
The media must be careful not to become the factory that inflates them.
Confidential Sources as a means of reaching the truth
Journalism cannot and should not abandon confidential sources. Without them, it would lose a central part of its ability to expose what powerful people would prefer to conceal. But it must return to a simple principle: A source is a means of reaching the truth, not a substitute for it.
A good journalist is not a source’s messenger. On the contrary, precisely because journalists know their sources, speak with them, and trust them, they must repeatedly ask themselves the following: What is this person’s interest? What are they not telling me? Why are they telling me this now?
In an era when the public is overwhelmed with information, the great advantage of professional journalism is not that it is always the first to know everything.
Its advantage is that when it publishes something, the public can trust that someone first asked the difficult questions.
The next time we hear that “a senior official said” something, the important question is not only what was said. We should also ask who wanted us to know and what they want to happen once we do.
David Ben Basat is the CEO of Radios 100fm, an honorary consul and deputy dean of the Consular Diplomatic Corps, and president of the Israel Amateur Radio Club. He previously served as a monitor for Israel’s Army Radio and as a correspondent for NBC News.
