登录查看更多内容

What are the best strategies for verifying sources who won't speak on the record?

由人工智能和领英社区提供技术支持

As a journalist, you may encounter sources who are reluctant or unwilling to speak on the record, meaning that they do not want their names or identities to be revealed in your story. However, this does not mean that you should dismiss their information or trust them blindly. You still need to verify their credibility, accuracy, and motives, and protect yourself from legal and ethical risks. Here are some of the best strategies for verifying sources who won't speak on the record.

在这篇协作文章中查找专家回答

由社区从 3 条内容中精选。了解更多

1 Assess the source's reliability

Before you agree to use a source off the record, you should try to assess their reliability and expertise. How do you know them? How did they get access to the information they are sharing? What is their track record of telling the truth? Do they have any conflicts of interest or ulterior motives? You should also ask them why they want to remain anonymous, and whether they are willing to provide any evidence or documents to back up their claims. If they refuse to answer these questions, or give vague or inconsistent answers, you should be wary of using them as a source.

添加您的观点

Daniel Holznagel

online platform regulation - Speaker, Teacher, Listener and former gvmt lawyer in this field
举报内容
Ich arbeite in einem recht speziellen Bereich und verwende Hintergrundinformationen nur, soweit ich die Quelle pers?nlich kenne. Auch in diesem Fall verwende ich die mitgeteilten Informationen nur vorsichtig (z.B. "gerüchteweise soll" oder "dem Vernehmen nach ...").

已翻译

赞

2 Corroborate the information

Even if you trust your source, you should not rely on their information alone. You should always try to corroborate it with other sources, documents, data, or observations. You can use public records, official reports, academic studies, or other media outlets to verify the facts and context of your story. You can also seek out other sources who are willing to speak on the record, or at least on background, meaning that they can be identified by their position or affiliation. You should compare and contrast the information you get from different sources, and look for any discrepancies or gaps.

添加您的观点

3 Attribute the information carefully

When you use information from a source who won't speak on the record, you should attribute it carefully and accurately. You should avoid using vague terms like "sources say" or "according to insiders", and instead use more specific terms like "a senior official" or "a person familiar with the matter". You should also explain why the source requested anonymity, and how you verified their information. You should not reveal any details that could identify the source, such as their name, gender, location, or relationship to the story. You should also respect the source's wishes and not reveal their identity to anyone else, unless they give you permission or there is a compelling public interest.

添加您的观点

Daniel Holznagel

online platform regulation - Speaker, Teacher, Listener and former gvmt lawyer in this field
举报内容
Meiner Erfahrung nach bedarf es langer Erfahrung, um von Quellen mitgeteilte Gerüchte einzuordnen. Zudem ist viel Kontextwissen erforderlich, um einzuordnen, ob das Gerücht plausibel ist.

已翻译

赞

4 Follow ethical and legal standards

Using sources who won't speak on the record can pose ethical and legal challenges for journalists. You should follow the ethical codes and guidelines of your media organization and your profession, and consult with your editor or lawyer if you have any doubts or concerns. You should also be aware of the legal risks of using anonymous sources, such as defamation, contempt of court, or breach of confidentiality. You should be prepared to defend your decision to use anonymous sources, and to protect your sources from legal threats or retaliation. You should also be honest and transparent with your audience, and explain why you used anonymous sources and how you verified their information.

添加您的观点

Daniel Holznagel

online platform regulation - Speaker, Teacher, Listener and former gvmt lawyer in this field
举报内容
Ich denke, es ist hilfreich, wenn in einer Verdachtsberichterstattung die juristischen Standards implizit erl?utert werden. Also Z.B. mitgeteilt wird, dass dem von einer Berichterstattung Betroffenen gerade Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme gegeben wurde, und welche Tatsachengrundlage den Verdacht begründen soll und m?glichst auch, welche Abw?gungen getroffen wurden. Das muss nicht als juristischer Text daher kommen, sondern soll die verwendete Sorgfalt offenlegen.

已翻译

赞

5 Review and update the information

Finally, you should review and update the information you get from sources who won't speak on the record, especially if it is time-sensitive or controversial. You should check for any new developments, corrections, or clarifications that could affect your story. You should also keep in touch with your sources, and ask them if they have any new information, or if they want to change or retract anything they said. You should also be ready to correct any errors or mistakes that you may have made, and to acknowledge them to your audience. You should also evaluate the impact and feedback of your story, and learn from your experience.

添加您的观点

6 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?

添加您的观点

Journalism

+ 关注

给文章评分

我们借助人工智能创建了此文章。您认为这篇文章怎么样？

很棒不太好

举报此文章

查看全部

What are the best strategies for verifying sources who won't speak on the record?

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 Assess the source's reliability

2 Corroborate the information

3 Attribute the information carefully

4 Follow ethical and legal standards

5 Review and update the information

6 Here’s what else to consider

Journalism

给文章评分

感谢您的反馈

更多Journalism相关文章

更多相关阅读内容