News sources provide journalists with information to publish in newspapers or broadcast in electronic media.
Without sources, there would be no stories as many events or information often relayed in the media happen away from journalists. Even when journalists have firsthand information or are eyewitnesses to events, they must authenticate their information from other sources for credibility, accuracy and trust.
Journalists should always name their sources. This is the standard practice world over.
A journalist can only keep the identity of his or her source confidential when the person providing the information might be harmed or, as the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism stipulates, the pursuit of the truth will best be served by not disclosing the source. A case in point are whistleblowers who risk retaliation, job loss or legal action for exposing corruption, abuse of power, or illegal activities.
In some cases, journalists withhold sources following confidentiality agreements. They agree to keep a source anonymous as a condition for receiving sensitive information. Outside of this, and to guarantee independence, journalists should gather and report news without fear or favour.
Recently, the Sunday Standard featured a story headlined ‘DP Kindiki finds his own footing as he marks 100 days in office’ (February 9, Page 6). The almost full-page article outlined the milestones of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki. What was curious, however, was that almost the entire story quoted anonymous sources even in cases that did not warrant confidentiality. Only two sources were named while four remained anonymous.
A Sunday Nation story carried the same day an assessment of Kindiki after 100 days in office that lifted the lid on The Standard’s mysterious sources. The alleged ‘sources’ was apparently just one, the DP’s communication team. Unlike the Sunday Standard, the Sunday Nation named all its five sources in a much shorter story titled ‘DP’s 100 days in office: Hits, misses and big task ahead’.
In one of the attributions, the Nation’s storyread: “According to the DP’s communication team, Prof Kindiki has had more than 60 meetings and met 250 members of the National Assembly out of 349. He has also met 40 out of 67 senators.”
Contrast this with the Sunday Standard’s story that read: “According to sources within the presidency, Kindiki has held consultations with a total of 250 MPs out of 349…Out of the 47 senators he has already had conversations with 40.”
While Nation identified the exact source, Standard remained vague.
Elsewhere, the Sunday Standard wrote: “Insiders reveal that the DP has been on a campaign to restore public trust…” “Sources reveal that Kindiki is now in charge of overseeing the implementation and completion of government projects…” The paper also quoted another source, which said Kindiki now coordinates the completion of projects launched by Cabinet secretaries.
It is clear that all these quotes did not warrant anonymity. Another point that is clear is that the writer relied almost entirely on DP’s communication team. Was this the writer’s attempt to hoodwink readers that he had interviewed multiple sources? And why didn’t the sub-editor call out the writer on this? It is not in doubt that the writer was too lazy to get information from other sources, thus robbing the readers of alternative views. And the editor who subbed the story is also guilty of engaging in lazy journalism.
