A bit of a meander of a thread on "sources", which is both a long-term bugbear of mine and seems to be a matter for discussion this morning when it comes to the #dominicgoings affair...

It's bugbear because in general the relationship between reporting and source is poorly understood by the UK public - rightly so, i'd suggest - and leads to a lot of hostility directed at journalists.

And i have, on more than one occasion, found myself taking flak for explaining why journos write as they do, even while i dislike intensely the rules under which we are forced to write.

One instance: the way in which violence against women gets reported, often in a way that minimises either what was done or the impact of same.

Another, the deadnaming/misgendering of trans people who have been victims of crime.

In both cases, the rule is mostly: go with what official sources, such as the police tell you unless you are able to source clearly contradictory versions.

And police statements tend to downplay stuff. Or miss some of the more nuanced perspectives that others of us would take.

There are two issues here. First, police awareness of the issues is sometimes lacking.

But second, police, like everyone else in the legal loop are scared stiff of being sued (for libel) and so they will go for lowest common denominator information release.

That, at least, is understandable. But when it comes to government and official sources, the water is far murkier.

In the UK there is a whole hierarchy of citation, including "on background", "a source" and an "official spokesperson".

#dominicgoings

It's complicated. In general, information gets into the public domain without direct attribution to a source.

This is justified many ways: it puts official information on the record; it means information that wouldn't be released is; and "we've always done it this way".

And quite frankly it is shit. I am well aware of stories where i know government pr's were lying to me. But for various reasons i could not state that: and the story requirement was that i write what i knew to be a lie.

The awful thing is: this is so deeply embedded in the "British way" that to challenge it in the least is to be unprofessional and to be threatened with future non-co-operation (as i found out one time i inadvertently attributed "background" to a source.

Though i still consider i was right to do that. Because the nature of the background went beyond background and into justification of the thing i was reporting on.

For an alternative perspective, check out these US guidelines on using sources from Reuters:

http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=The_Essentials_of_Reuters_sourcing&direction

Of particular relevance:

"You must source every statement in every story unless it is an established fact or is information clearly in the public domain, such as court documents or in instances when the reporter, photographer or camera operator was on the scene."

#dominicgoings

Also:

"Just because you have a named source does not mean you are free from responsibility for what you quote the source as saying."

#dominicgoings

And:

"Whenever possible, sources should be identified by name and position. Such specific sourcing enables readers to gauge the accuracy of a story by telling them how close sources are to the information."

The UK approach is shit!

That is all.

/fin

#dominicgoings