Confidential Sources

Confidential sources help to disclose information to reporters that otherwise would be hard for them to access. They reveal transgressions in the government and other organizations. Sources are more willing to share sensitive information with reporters because of  ‘reporter's privilege’ and ‘shield laws,’ which gives a reporter the right to withhold the name of their sources in court. According to the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics, a journalist must take into account a sources reasons for wanting their identity to remain confidential and “reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere.” Protection for confidential sources is necessary; otherwise, people would not come forward to share information. By using confidential sources, writers such as journalists, correspondents, editors, and anchorpersons can expose and enlighten the public on issues. In some cases, it causes the problem to be fixed due to public outrage or merely due to the embarrassment of having the transgression exposed.

Confidential sources are helpful to journalists in that they share information about wrongdoings or misdeeds of the government or other organizations. Since confidential sources usually come from within the government or organization, they have a unique perspective on the issue they are revealing. This can be beneficial in the instance that if a transgression is harming or affecting people in a negative way, by making it public, hopefully, it will be fixed or the action will be stopped. Confidential sources can be a negative when the information being shared with the reporters is not true. This deception could happen if a political party was trying to ruin the reputation of the other party, a policy created or a decision made by the opposing. For example, if one party sends a confidential source to tell a reporter that the opposing party’s new policy is polluting rivers when in reality it was not, is a negative use of confidential sources. The goal of this would be to have people believe the information about the river and tarnish the reputation of the party, the new policy, and even to have the policy removed. This is not a proper use of confidential sources. Confidential sources can bring to light corruption, but sometimes they can also be unethical in sharing information.

Reporters and journalists use confidential sources because many times it is the only way to get the information to the public. The sources can have different reasons for wanting to get their information out there in the public eye that can be beneficial to our society about illegal things going on that are entwined in the political and social fabric of our society. Many heated issues have been brought to light from confidential sources from Watergate to Trump. There are debates whether confidential sources should be guaranteed anonymity but without anonymity bribery, extortion, crime, and fraud can go undetected or unexposed. What a disservice to society if issues like corruption are not brought forward by confidential sources.

It is essential for journalists to make sure their source has accurate and truthful information. News travels so very fast and can be distributed across the globe in a matter of seconds. Untruthful or wrong information not only affects people but our commercial markets as well. Incorrect information can have consequences that fracture, divide and rupture people, places, policies and our economy. Wrong information from a confidential source can end up with lawsuits.

Any privilege is just that, a privilege. If a confidential source has information that is relevant to an issue that needs to be exposed, it is imperative that they get the information out there, but at the same time, we must guard the integrity of this so-called free flow of information to protect all.