The sauce on the source

In the news cycle over the past week, I’ve seen more ‘special sources’ than you’d find on the Gravox shelf at Coles.

Stories like the Kyle & Jackie O Show collapse unleash more than just an online torrent of clickbait headlines. As competing publications fall over themselves in the rush to get the scoop and stay ahead of the pack, there’s an ever-increasing tendency to quote anonymous sources.

When official comment is not forthcoming, credible sources are the oil that greases the wheels of journalism.

Well-placed, reliable sources can add weight and interest to a story.

But what about the dodgy ones? Sources variously and benignly described as ‘those familiar with the situation,’ ‘insiders,’ ‘close friends,’ or even ‘pals’?

Some pal you are, if you’re willing to shop out your mates.

There’s a fine line between landing your scoop and landing yourself in credibility detention.

Relying on anonymous sources is obviously risky. Quite apart from the possibility of reporting false information, it screams speculation – even manipulation – especially if somebody has an axe to grind.

In other words, somebody with an agenda.

During my FM radio days, I remember a certain phrase creeping into the odd news bulletin: We’re hearing …

As in: We’re hearing another truck is stuck under a bridge

We’re hearing a high-profile celebrity has died

We’re hearing there’s been a fatal crash in the CBD

We’re hearing? From whom??

It was a simple, if lazy, way of trying to cover one’s journalistic backside in case something turned out to be untrue.

We’re hearing does nothing to reassure the listener that what they’re hearing is factual.

The same applies with the over-use of anonymous sources.

Former Guardian Editor-in-Chief Alan Rusbridger recalls once reading a 1,000-word political story containing no less than 19 anonymous sources, including a ‘senior insider’ (“Have you ever read anything attributed to a ‘junior insider’?, Rusbridger scoffs), a ‘senior source,’ two more ‘insiders,’ a ‘government source,’ as well as a ‘senior No. 10 source,’ another ‘insider,’ plus another ‘source’ (just the everyday, garden-variety kind).

“I’m not saying these people don’t exist, or aren’t who they were claimed to be,” Rusbridge muses.

“But as an innocent reader, I am being asked to take a lot on trust.”

This article is brought to you by Radio Release.