The reasons why one keeps confidentiality are rarely explained to readers.
Anonymous sources are used quite frequently in the Portuguese press. The DN [Daily News] is not an exception to that. Here are some examples of recent news in which sources are not clearly indicated: “The DN learned that from a reliable source,” “an official source told the DN,” “a person in charge of the Largo do Rato (!)”further identified as “this socialist leader”a “business owner who prefers to remain anonymous.” The reasons why one keeps confidentiality are rarely explained to readers. In some cases, the style, the theme, or the time of the article lead one to guess the reasons for such anonymity. One should accept that sometimes information could only be obtained if the source were not exposed to the public. In this aspect, the use of anonymous sources can legitimize to the right to information. However, the justification for such procedure can be found only if that is both an unquestionable and exceptional necessity. In another past article, I called the attention to the position of Daniel Ockrent, former ombudsman of The New York Times, regarding this matter. I now recall what I said: “A small object to be hung on the wall should be part of the editorial offices. A box with a glass cover containing a certificate in which one could read: ‘Authorization to mention anonymous sources.’ A small hammer would be hanging from the box and a small sign would be placed next to it reading: ‘In case of emergency, please break the glass.’ And, he adds, such emergency should exist due to readers, and not due to the newspaper.”
Last June 8, the DN published three articles by Armando Rafael, an important reporter of the DN, reporting on the Sporting Club de Portugal. One of the articles was qualified as being a thesis and, to a great extent, an explanation of the thoughts of Dias da Cunha, president of the Club SAD; the other was the antithesis, criticizing the present management, and the last one was the synthesis.
In the first article, one could understand that it was the president of the club “speaking” more than once. But in the article entitled “The Lion, Management of the Sporting, justifies all criticisms,” direct quotes were attributed to “other directors” or “former directors,” to “several sources consulted by the DN,” to “most of the sources consulted by the DN,” or to people that know the “Club resort” well. One cannot deny that the sources are relevant and well informed, but [they remain] anonymous. Armando Rafael, from whom I requested some explanations, responded by reporting the story of his first foray into the world of sport. The origin of the article was rooted in his wish to understand what was happening in the Club after a debate he watched on TV. ” ( … ) 5. There was, however, an issue: no one would be willing to show up ( …) 6. After learning many ‘stories’ and facts, I decided to write, with the clear sensation that I had only had access to some of those ‘stories’ and some of those facts because I did not belong to the ‘sport environment’, which, from my point of view, was an advantage to the DN and to my readers ( … ) 7. Thus, several hypotheses were presented: I could tell everything, taking the responsibility for such ‘stories’; identifying some sources, mentioning their functions, but not their names; or I could opt for a mixed version. After stating that he opted for a mixed version, Armando Rafael concluded: “10. If you pay attention, this is a ‘technique’ frequently used in the Politics section of newspapers in Portugal and in most European countries. That was exactly what I did, causing, eventually, some surprise to those not used to such methods in the Sports section.”
In short: there were several solutions that are made explicit, although one was not: when the journalist decides not cover an event due to the anonymity, which some sources manifestly wish to retain. On the other hand, the reference to the European customs and to Politics sections in the newspapers may and should be questioned. Sebastian Serrano, defendant of the El Pas reader, recently wrote an article about confidential sources. One of the journalists of El Pas gives a precise example of justified anonymity: a photograph published on the eve of the beginning of the Iraq War that proved the arrival of American planes to Morn Base. Another journalist, Soledad Gallego-Diaz, makes a distinction between confidential sources that contribute with a verifiable fact and those that express only meanings and opinions. “The best way is to renounce this kind of opinion and analysis and to publish just what is sustained by the identity of its author.” And recognize that “in practice, this supposedly almost completely eliminates the information about what happens inside the parties or inside most of the institutions and corporations” because much of this information relates mostly to differences regarding understanding and opinions as opposed to with concrete facts. Everything shows that this is an issue for which there is no single solution, even in Europe. The Style Book of the DN says “sources are always identified with the name and function of those who make statements.” And in the anonymity entry it states: “All persons and organizations mentioned in DN articles and reports are identified, except when it is necessary to protect [the person's] privacy and good name.”
We live in a time when readers have to judge for themselves the credibility of sources and information presented. As an ombudsman, I must point out everything that promotes the civic improvement of readers, even if we have to search for good examples beyond the Atlantic or on this side of the Pyrenees. Theme complexity, frequency of anonymous sources, a news article issued yesterday about Time, the recent case of Deep Throat, and even some academic works about anonymous sources give enough reasons for his coming back soon.
WRITING PAD
Words from Dias da Cunha I have requested from the Sporting President a reaction on the texts. I didn’t have to wait long: “(…) what offended me most about Mr. Armando Rafael’s texts, AR, from June 8, was the deliberate mixture of opinions from anonymous sources, which easily made a stand attributable to me. The resulting “melting pot,” in fact an authentic stinking mix, leads any reader, even the best informed in all “cooking specialties” and regularly supplied by the local written social communication, to understand that confronted by a journalist deliberately tricking and protecting such sources, it would have kept me into a prudent silence.
Thereafter Dias da Cunha explains how the journalist rapidly succeeded to gain his collaboration despite a very intensive working phase and concluded: “The urgency of AR, as he explained me, was justified by the need to obtain clarifications with regard to rumors circulating among sport cognoscenti, clarifications to be included in a text he was finishing. However, I must clarify that during the conversation I had with AR, the main nonsense “scattered” in his text didn’t come, in any way, shape, or form, into question.”
I have informed Armando Rafael of the content of this e-mail; the journalist gave me further explanations on the conditions involving his contact with the SCP President. However, it started in a way that I cannot avoid pointing out, because it is rare in the journalistic environment, which is always ready to end controversies with the last word. “Due to reasons of principle, I do not comment on readers’ opinions or on sources’ reactions. (I’ll give you a practical example: in my opinion, the letters addressed to the DN Director or letters from readers should never be the object of any reply or comment. Except, of course, for a few and honorable exceptions. Every one of them duly considered.)” I do not believe I should give opportunity to any exception in Dr. Dias da Cunha’s case. Moreover, the terms of the letter (or e-mail) are, in my point of view, sufficiently revealing. At least regarding a (certain) style. “A method to be more frequently used remains therefore: the journalist does not have the right to the last word.”
