Many times, reporters' sources will want to have some say in what
information we use from them and how, and sometimes it's difficult to
explain to them why we can't do that.
Recently, one such source was upset that we were going to run a quote he
wasn't happy with. Sorry, I had to tell him - if you said it, we can print
it. Many times, sources' views of reporters are slightly skewed. I blame
it mostly on "Deep Throat."
There are times when we work with sources on the information we use from
them.
It all breaks down to a hierarchy of sources that may help explain the
process:
Regular sources: The information they give is fair game.
Anonymous sources: Give information that can be used without their name.
Many times, newspapers are skeptical of running this kind of information
because the credibility of the sources could be called into question.
Background sources: Give information off the record that can't be used,
and their names can't be revealed. But their information can prove
valuable in hunting down stories.
Our source was a run-of-the-mill, regular source. And he wasn't someone
who has had minimal contact with journalists. He's dealt with them for a
long time, he said. So I was surprised when he expected us to "clean up" a
quote.
Here's why we can't do that:
Letting sources dictate what goes into a story - even the slightest change
to a bad quote in a buried story - gives the impression that sources can
control our coverage. Obviously, that can create a credibility issue for
us journalists.
Also, our job description is documenting what is happening in the world
around us. We can't alter what happened - in this case, what was said -
for any reason.
