Editing Source (journalism) (section)

== Ethical guidelines ==

===Confidential information===

A journalist may agree to discuss a topic "off the record". According to the [[Poynter Institute for Media Studies|Poynter Institute]], if a reporter agrees to an off-the-record conversation, "the ethical thing to do is not report or even repeat that information".<ref name="Poynter">{{cite web |last1=Jones |first1=Tom |title=What does 'off the record' mean? The latest journalism controversy |url=https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2021/what-does-off-the-record-mean-the-latest-journalism-controversy/ |website=Poynter |access-date=23 September 2024 |date=20 September 2021}}</ref>

Unlike a [[non-disclosure agreement]] (NDA), an agreement to talk off the record has no legal force. Unlike a non-disclosure agreement, it lacks one or more of the elements that make up a binding contract.<ref name="LawDepot">{{cite web |title=Off the Record vs a Non-Disclosure Agreement - LawDepot.com |url=https://www.lawdepot.com/resources/business-articles/off-the-record-vs-a-non-disclosure-agreement/ |website=LawDepot |access-date=23 September 2024}}</ref> However, like a non-disclosure agreement, a source may be able to use contract law to control the use of the information provided or protect their privacy.<ref name="Cohen v Cowles">{{cite web |title=Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/663/ |website=Justia Law |access-date=23 September 2024 |language=en}}</ref>

Some journalists and news organizations have policies against accepting information "off the record" because they believe it interferes with their ability to report truthfully, or because they suspect it may be intended to mislead them or the public. Some people believe it is unethical for a source to give information off the record.

Even if writers cannot report certain information directly, they can use "off the record" information to uncover related facts, or to find other sources who are willing to speak on the record. This is especially useful in [[investigative journalism]]. Information about a surprise event or breaking [[news]], whether on or off the record, is known as a "tip-off". Information that leads to the uncovering of more interesting information is called a "lead".

=== Anonymous source ===
The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality as the journalist. (Lawyers are generally protected from [[subpoena]] in these cases by [[attorney–client privilege]].) Legal staff may need to give counsel about whether it is advisable to publish certain information, or about court proceedings that may attempt to learn confidential information. Senior editors are in the loop to prevent reporters from fabricating non-existent anonymous sources and to provide a second opinion about how to use the information obtained, how to or how not to identify sources, and whether other options should be pursued.

The use of anonymous sources has always been controversial. Some news outlets insist that anonymous sources are the only way to obtain certain information, while others prohibit the use of unnamed sources at all times.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shedden |first=David |url=http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=49&aid=64013 |title=Anonymous Sources &#124; Poynter |publisher=Poynter. |access-date=2015-02-28}}</ref> News organizations may impose safeguards, such as requiring that information from an anonymous source be corroborated by a second source before it can be printed.

Prominent reports based on anonymous sources have sometimes been proven to be incorrect. For instance, much of the [[O. J. Simpson]] reporting from unnamed sources was later deemed inaccurate.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shepard |first=Alicia C. |url=https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030816085328/https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596 |url-status=dead |archive-date=August 16, 2003 |title=Anonymous Sources |publisher=American Journalism Review |access-date=December 1, 2019}}</ref> ''[[Newsweek]]'' retracted a [[2005 Quran desecration controversy|story]] about a [[Qur'an 2|Qur'an]] allegedly being flushed down a toilet—the story had been based upon one unnamed military source.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601262.html |title=Newsweek Retracts Guantanamo Story |work=The Washington Post |date= 2005-05-17|access-date=2015-02-28 |first=Howard |last=Kurtz}}</ref>

After the embarrassment, a news organization will often "clamp down" on the guidelines for using unnamed sources, but those guidelines are often forgotten after the scandal dies down.{{Citation needed|date=July 2018}} One study found that large newspapers' use of anonymous sources dropped dramatically between 2003 and 2004. The [[Project for Excellence in Journalism]], a research group, found use of anonymous sources dropped from 29 percent of all articles in 2003 to just seven percent in 2004,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/business/media/14reporter.html|title=Fewer Sources Go Nameless in the Press, Survey Shows|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2015-02-28|first=Katharine Q.|last=Seelye|date=2005-03-14}}</ref> following widespread embarrassment of media after the Bush administration claims that Iraq had WMDs were found to be without basis.

===Sex with sources===
In the U.S., this practice is generally not well seen.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/19/is-it-ok-to-sleep-with-your-sources-218832| title = Is It OK to Sleep With Your Sources? - POLITICO Magazine| website = [[Politico]]| date = 19 June 2018}}</ref> However, lengthy lists of reporters' sexual involvement with sources were published by ''[[American Journalism Review]]''<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lori Robertson |title=Romancing the Source |url=https://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=2520 |access-date=26 November 2020 |work=[[American Journalism Review]] |date=May 2002 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160818031811/https://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=2520 |archive-date=18 August 2016}}</ref> and by the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]''.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.latimes.com/la-op-castenada29jul29-story.html| title = Romancing the source - Los Angeles Times| website = [[Los Angeles Times]]| date = 29 July 2007}}</ref>

===Not on tape===

Whether in a formal, sit-down interview setting or an impromptu meeting on the street, some sources request that all or part of the encounter not be captured in an audio or video recording ("tape"), but continue speaking to the reporter. As long as the interview is not confidential, the reporter may report the information given by the source, even repeating direct quotes (perhaps scribbled on a notepad or recalled from memory). This often shows up in broadcasts as "John Brown declined to be interviewed on camera, but said" or simply "a spokesperson said".

Some interview subjects are uncomfortable being recorded. Some are afraid they will be inarticulate or feel embarrassed if the interview is broadcast. Others might be uncooperative or distrust the motives or competence of the journalist, and wish to prevent them from being able to broadcast an unflattering [[sound bite]] or part of the interview out of context. Professional [[public relations]] officers know that having the reporter repeat their words, rather than being heard directly on the air, will blunt the effect of their words.{{Citation needed|date=November 2007}} By refusing to be taped or on the air, a person avoids having an audience see or hear them being uncomfortable (if they have unpleasant news); it also permits the individual to be anonymous or identified only by title.