Email
Some stories would never be broken without quoting a source anonymously; many are undermined by the peppering of the text with “government” or “company” sources. Or that other source of last resort – the “insider”.
Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, wrote on 15 July 2000, in an article that dealt with anonymous quotations: “More difficult is the whole question of attribution. In politics – as in virtually every other walk of life – people will often speak more honestly if they are allowed to speak anonymously. The use of non-attributed quotes can thus assist the reader towards a truer understanding than if a journalist confined him/herself to quoting the bland banalities that often pass for on-the-record quotes …
“In addition to naming the spokesman at official lobbying briefings, we will adopt a stricter code on the use of anonymous pejorative quotes. And we will encourage reporters to be as specific as possible about the source of any anonymous quotation. ‘One MP’ or ‘a government colleague’ is so weak as to be meaningless. ‘Senior minister’ is an advance. ‘Cabinet minister with direct knowledge of the negotiations’ is better still. By now the reader can genuinely evaluate the worth of the remark.
“We will codify these guidelines and publish them: doubtless we will break them from time to time. But we will do our best to make a start on the road to more valuable and evaluate-able reporting.”
He reinforced that message in 2003, just before the Hutton report came out. An Open Door column by my predecessor Ian Mayes published on 13 December 2003, which also looked at the issue of anonymous quotes, quoted Rusbridger from a set of briefing notes he had issued to staff: “Hutton may well have uncomfortable things to say about the way we gather news: how we evaluate and edit it and how we react when challenged as to its veracity. The public, already pretty sceptical about what we say and how we operate, will, I think, expect some evidence that journalists are putting their own house in order …
“We have a policy on sources. It says we should use anonymous sources sparingly. It says that we should – except in exceptional circumstances – avoid anonymous pejorative quotes. It says that we should avoid misrepresenting the nature and number of sources, and that we should do our best to give readers some clue as to the authority with which they speak.”
However, that pledge has been broken, according to one reader, Dr David Lowry, who wrote about “a front-page story last weekend ... replete with many anonymous comments purporting to be from senior Labour figures, including from the shadow cabinet, dripping political poison on their leader, Ed Miliband.
“I wanted to remind the Guardian editor … of his own … pledge to readers he would not anonymise sources … in your front-page story on Saturday (Labour election anxiety grows, 21 June), he relied upon anonymous Labour ‘frontbenchers’ and ‘former ministers’. Why have you dumped the very commendable policy of transparency in reportage you introduced?
“The anonymous frontbencher who arrogantly asserted: ‘Ed cannot stay on if he loses [next year’s general election]’ should have the courage of their convictions and go public on their remarks.”
Nick Watt wrote that story and has used the term “sources” or “source” 44 times in the past three months in stories. When I spoke to him and other members of the political team – although the practice is not confined to the political staff – they recognised it as an important issue. All I spoke to said they were aware of the editorial guidelines, last updated in 2011, and had attempted to adhere to them. The guidelines follow the lines of Rusbridger’s remarks in 2000 – guidelines he still strongly supports, he told me last week.
Watt said: “Political journalism involves providing the most honest account of the political world, which is often dominated by disputes over ideas and between individuals. These usually take place behind closed doors, which means there is no daily bulletin with open quotes. We would be failing in our duty if we did not seek to report on these disputes. But we also have a duty to assess what we are being told and to present our findings in a fair and balanced manner.
Anonymous sources often have to be used when there is no dispute. In explaining its thinking ahead of an international summit, for example, a government spokesperson may asked to be quoted on an anonymous basis to avoid showing the government’s hand in public ahead of negotiations. Again it is our duty to assess the government’s briefing with care.”
The use of anonymous quotes is widespread within newspapers and is, I think, particularly insidious when used to snipe at public figures in profiles.
In Rusbridger’s 2000 article he talked approvingly of the guidelines in place at the New York Times regarding the use of anonymous quotes. However, Margaret Sullivan, the current public editor, became so exasperated with the practice that she began “AnonyWatch” to track what she considered to be the most egregious examples.
The practice is so widespread I don’t think it is fair to single out political journalists and I found it to be a much more sensitive subject in the newsroom than it should be with such clear guidelines. The guidelines are sound – they just need to be in the forefront of the reporter and the editor’s mind. For instance, when was the last time a senior Guardian editor was asked for permission to use a pejorative anonymous quote as per the guidelines?
Dan Sabbagh, the national news editor, says he talks to journalists about the circumstances in which anonymous sources will be used but won’t say how often. However, he said he will raise the issue in the light of the complaint.
;
Comment from the paper
Steve Bell on RBS – cartoon
John Harris: It’s not just Scotland where politics as usual is finished
Gaby Hinsliff: Fat-shaming: how the slim and sanctimonious help to cause our obesity crisis