Why Was a Letter Published Unsigned?

I have received several phone calls concerning last week’s Letter to the Editor regarding the Western Legacy Center.

The policy to the left has been in the newspaper since I began. “Names will be withheld by request only if deemed a matter of personal/business safety.”

This policy is why the letter was left anonymous, as I am sure others will be in the future. This is not only my policy but the policy of most journalistic entities. Regarding the Western Legacy Center, there are many reasons not to sign. Perhaps a business owner wants to speak out but received assistance from WLC’s founders, the Jefferson Local Development Corporation, and does not wish to disparage their relationship with JLDC. Or perhaps they are concerned their business will lose community support by speaking out—many reasons.

We have all heard of sources, whether in movies, the news, etc. That is exactly what this is: a non-attributable source.

According to Chapter 59 of The News Manual: “When you get information from a source, you normally need to attribute that information to someone. You do it, for example, through the verb “to say” or a phrase like “according to ....”

There are three levels of attribution, depending on whether your source is happy about being publicly identified or whether they want to keep some secrecy about what they tell you. These three levels are:

On the record, which means you can use both their words and their name;

Off the record, which means you cannot use either the information or the source’s name;

Non-attributable means you can use the information but not the source’s name. Sometimes a source will give you information on the understanding that you can use the information but not attribute it to them.

Your source may do this for one of several reasons. Perhaps they are not officially allowed to give you the information, but they think it should be made public. Perhaps they do not want to be in the public eye. Politicians sometimes give non-attributable details of a plan so that they can find out the public reaction to it without any risk.”

In addition to the policy in the manual, I, as Editor of the Whitehall Ledger, also require that a non-attributable source signs their letter, which I keep on file, stating why they wish to remain anonymous. I also vet their information and make sure nothing slanderous was said.

The words “confidence” and “confidentiality” are based on the Latin word for trust. When you are given information in confidence, this usually means that you promise that you will not tell anyone else where you got it from. Your confidential informant trusts you to keep their identity secret. Agreeing to accept non-attributable information is the most common example of confidentiality.

People usually ask for confidentiality because they are afraid of other people finding out they gave you information. There are all sorts of reasons why they need confidentiality:

They might fear that their bosses will punish them for giving the information.

They might be afraid of what other people think about them if certain information is shown to have come from them.

They might be in a position of power but limited by rules about what they can say officially.

Confidentiality of sources is central to the ethics of journalism (Chapter 60, The NEws Manual). As a journalist, you rely on people telling you things. Sometimes those people do not want their identity revealed to others.

However, it is always better to be able to quote someone by name; in certain circumstances you have to quote what your source says without revealing away their identity. If you name a source who has given you information in confidence, you betray their trust. They will probably never give you confidential information again. But more importantly, anyone who knows that you cannot be trusted will probably refuse to give you information in confidence.

If people mistrust you, they might carry that mistrust to all journalists. Any journalist who betrays a trust weakens the whole of the profession.

While some may disagree with this, I would rather have vetted letters with real questions and topics than unrepresented businesses wishing there was an outlet they could speak their concerns.