Short thread for journalism students @bbclaurak #DominicCummings and using unnamed sources: citing unnamed sources is a fact of life in political reporting, using one in this case in the way #LauraKunessberg did was a mistake. Here is why...

When a big story breaks of a possible crime or "serious anti-social behaviour" (BBC editorial policy term) by a politician/public figure the race is on to get them ON THE RECORD to respond. It is a basic part of journalism and it is holding power to account.

When unnamed sources give you the response it means it is not on the record and power is not held to account. By repeating the source you are effectively rolling out an unaccountable defence.

As a journalist covering politics you have to talk to unnamed sources and even cite them but you do not let them replace accountable government.

If #LauraKunessberg wanted to use the unnamed sources she could have said: I'm understand from unnamed sources the government will be defending Cummings actions by saying...
But then you need to be pretty confident that the government were about to go on record and say that.

That way you get your scoop and you keep your journalistic integrity.
Unfortunately she did not do this.
The debate around whether to use unnamed sources or not, is wrong. The debate needs to be when and when it isn't appropriate to use them and in what way.

Last tweet. Journalism is highly pressured. I think @bbclaurak made a mistake. We all make mistakes. This should be used as a moment on how the government often uses unnamed sources and how journalists work with them effectively enabling power to avoid proper accountability.