The Code says unnamed sources should not be used unless the pursuit of the truth will best be served by not naming the source who must be known by the editor and reporter. When material is used in a report from sources other than the reporter’s, the source should be indicated in the story, the code recommends. In one word this part of the code talks about attribution and recommends not to run stories that are poorly sourced. Despite the recommendation, however, journalists all over the world will continue to base major stories on facts obtained from people who insist on speaking on condition of anonymity.
By emphasizing that the source should be known to both the reporter and the editor, the Code obviously is concerned about accuracy of the story. Any story deliberately published when it is known to both the editor and the reporter, or even just one of them, to be inaccurate can potentially damage the reputation of the media house that made it see the light of the day. One of the most important duties of gatekeepers in any newsroom is to separate the journalistic horses from the mules by verifying all the facts and among the best methods of authenticating a story is to attribute it to an authoritative source.
Whenever journalists doubt the authenticity of a story they always go to the source to verify its substance. A far fetched cock-and-bull story that has no authentic source can gain no currency if it is attributed to “sources that requested to remain anonymous”. Unfortunately this kind of shoddy journalism is rampant in both the alternative press and the young radio stations manned by disk-jockeys who don’t even seem to have the slightest clue about what news values are.
Many a time journalists refuse to name their sources by attributing their stories to “sources close to State House” or “diplomatic sources”. One such example was published by the Sunday Times of July 31, 2005 with a very compelling splash headline screaming: “Why Murungaru is Unwanted in the UK”. The story claimed that the travel ban on Murungaru was a result of “a lengthy investigation of grand corruption in the Kibaki administration.” Source? Diplomatic! When authentic sources are not specifically named they remain vague, mysterious and confusing just as the Sunday Times story was. Diplomatic sources just like “highly placed government sources”, mean nothing to the readers, viewers or listeners. Proper attribution is naming names of real sources of information.
Apart from being economical with sources some journalists don’t even reveal the real names of the people they are writing about. Very often Kenyan journalists write sensational exposes revealing all sorts of crimes perpetrated by some very powerful people in our society; but invariably they substitute the names of real criminals with fictitious ones in order either to protect the identity of the crooks or protect themselves against possible harmful retaliatory revenge from the criminals. While refusing to name their sources most journalists hide behind “the right of reporters not to reveal the source of their story.”
The controversial question that is often asked to challenge that dictum is whether journalists are right to protect sources engaging in criminal activities. Would it be right, for example, for a journalist to describe in details how the American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed in …without naming the bombers because they were the writer’s source? Can journalists claim to be special members of society who live above the law by protecting criminals who are sources of their news? According to Wikipedia, the free network encyclopedia in journalism attribution is the identification of the source of reported information. Many codes of ethics for journalists all over the world, according to Wikipedia, address the issue of attribution, which is sensitive because in the course of their work journalists may receive information from sources who wish to remain anonymous.
FAIR, the media watch group known as Fairness and Accuracy in reporting encourages journalists and news outlets to reveal their sources in certain circumstances. It says protecting the identities of confidential sources is a journalistic right that should be recognized by all especially the courts but it adds that this right should be exercised very sparingly and only when it protects genuine whistleblowers, not when it shields government wrongdoings. Apart from upholding the attribution ethical principle, journalists should also take a further step of verifying whether what is presented to them as news and information is factually correct.
Very often top newsmakers including heads of state agree to be used as sources of information which they know to be incorrect. When the lies are passed to the people as facts they are accepted as truths because their sources are well known and even respected ones. Attribution can therefore be used as conveyors of untruthful information unless journalists are very careful to check the authenticity of all information even when it comes from very powerful people. The most infamous lie that was passed to the public from a powerful leader came from George W. Bush’s State of the Union address in 2003 when he told the world that the British government had learnt that Saddam Hussein had sought “significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
According to FAIR that assertion was similar to claims made previously by US administration officials, including the then Secretary of State Colin Powell that Iraq had sought to import yellow cake uranium from Niger, a strong indication that Saddam Hussein’s regime was reconstituting its nuclear weapons programme.FAIR suggests that the attention media pay (to attribution) should be part of a larger journalistic inquiry into other misstatements that have been made (by sources).
In America where leaders like Bush tell blatant lies they are given the necessary publicity on one hand but on the other they are immediately exposed as liars by truly professional journalists in the same story. On July 14, 2003, for example, when the American President unashamedly distorted Iraqi’s prewar history by claiming that weapon inspectors were not allowed in the country, he told journalists: “We gave him (Saddam Hussein) a chance to allow inspectors in, and he won’t let them in”. The next day the Washington Post boldly said the President intentionally “appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war.” Kenyan journalists should do the same.
It is not enough to attribute a controversial statement to an important personality but what is even more important is to expose the lie in the statement if it is factually incorrect. Journalists should never cease to be skeptical about the accuracy of the news they get from the mighty and powerful. They must, at all costs, avoid delivering to the people polluted information and news. According to Jagadish B. Rao, an information technology international marketing consultant with East West Alliance, Inc, (people) campaign against many kinds of pollution, but tend to ignore its deadliest form: information pollution. He says compared with pollution of our ecosystem, which affects the physical well being of all living creatures, the relentless growth of information pollution has devastating effects on our psyche and metal health.
He suggests that we should take concerted and coordinated action to control it – before it destroys us. In the fight against polluted information journalists should be in the forefront and one of the best ways of sanitizing information is to give it a proper source and correct the source whenever the source itself is either deliberately or inadvertently wrong.
By emphasizing that the source should be known to both the reporter and the editor, the Code obviously is concerned about accuracy of the story. Any story deliberately published when it is known to both the editor and the reporter, or even just one of them, to be inaccurate can potentially damage the reputation of the media house that made it see the light of the day. One of the most important duties of gatekeepers in any newsroom is to separate the journalistic horses from the mules by verifying all the facts and among the best methods of authenticating a story is to attribute it to an authoritative source.
Whenever journalists doubt the authenticity of a story they always go to the source to verify its substance. A far fetched cock-and-bull story that has no authentic source can gain no currency if it is attributed to “sources that requested to remain anonymous”. Unfortunately this kind of shoddy journalism is rampant in both the alternative press and the young radio stations manned by disk-jockeys who don’t even seem to have the slightest clue about what news values are.
Many a time journalists refuse to name their sources by attributing their stories to “sources close to State House” or “diplomatic sources”. One such example was published by the Sunday Times of July 31, 2005 with a very compelling splash headline screaming: “Why Murungaru is Unwanted in the UK”. The story claimed that the travel ban on Murungaru was a result of “a lengthy investigation of grand corruption in the Kibaki administration.” Source? Diplomatic! When authentic sources are not specifically named they remain vague, mysterious and confusing just as the Sunday Times story was. Diplomatic sources just like “highly placed government sources”, mean nothing to the readers, viewers or listeners. Proper attribution is naming names of real sources of information.
Apart from being economical with sources some journalists don’t even reveal the real names of the people they are writing about. Very often Kenyan journalists write sensational exposes revealing all sorts of crimes perpetrated by some very powerful people in our society; but invariably they substitute the names of real criminals with fictitious ones in order either to protect the identity of the crooks or protect themselves against possible harmful retaliatory revenge from the criminals. While refusing to name their sources most journalists hide behind “the right of reporters not to reveal the source of their story.”
The controversial question that is often asked to challenge that dictum is whether journalists are right to protect sources engaging in criminal activities. Would it be right, for example, for a journalist to describe in details how the American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed in …without naming the bombers because they were the writer’s source? Can journalists claim to be special members of society who live above the law by protecting criminals who are sources of their news? According to Wikipedia, the free network encyclopedia in journalism attribution is the identification of the source of reported information. Many codes of ethics for journalists all over the world, according to Wikipedia, address the issue of attribution, which is sensitive because in the course of their work journalists may receive information from sources who wish to remain anonymous.
FAIR, the media watch group known as Fairness and Accuracy in reporting encourages journalists and news outlets to reveal their sources in certain circumstances. It says protecting the identities of confidential sources is a journalistic right that should be recognized by all especially the courts but it adds that this right should be exercised very sparingly and only when it protects genuine whistleblowers, not when it shields government wrongdoings. Apart from upholding the attribution ethical principle, journalists should also take a further step of verifying whether what is presented to them as news and information is factually correct.
Very often top newsmakers including heads of state agree to be used as sources of information which they know to be incorrect. When the lies are passed to the people as facts they are accepted as truths because their sources are well known and even respected ones. Attribution can therefore be used as conveyors of untruthful information unless journalists are very careful to check the authenticity of all information even when it comes from very powerful people. The most infamous lie that was passed to the public from a powerful leader came from George W. Bush’s State of the Union address in 2003 when he told the world that the British government had learnt that Saddam Hussein had sought “significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
According to FAIR that assertion was similar to claims made previously by US administration officials, including the then Secretary of State Colin Powell that Iraq had sought to import yellow cake uranium from Niger, a strong indication that Saddam Hussein’s regime was reconstituting its nuclear weapons programme.FAIR suggests that the attention media pay (to attribution) should be part of a larger journalistic inquiry into other misstatements that have been made (by sources).
In America where leaders like Bush tell blatant lies they are given the necessary publicity on one hand but on the other they are immediately exposed as liars by truly professional journalists in the same story. On July 14, 2003, for example, when the American President unashamedly distorted Iraqi’s prewar history by claiming that weapon inspectors were not allowed in the country, he told journalists: “We gave him (Saddam Hussein) a chance to allow inspectors in, and he won’t let them in”. The next day the Washington Post boldly said the President intentionally “appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war.” Kenyan journalists should do the same.
It is not enough to attribute a controversial statement to an important personality but what is even more important is to expose the lie in the statement if it is factually incorrect. Journalists should never cease to be skeptical about the accuracy of the news they get from the mighty and powerful. They must, at all costs, avoid delivering to the people polluted information and news. According to Jagadish B. Rao, an information technology international marketing consultant with East West Alliance, Inc, (people) campaign against many kinds of pollution, but tend to ignore its deadliest form: information pollution. He says compared with pollution of our ecosystem, which affects the physical well being of all living creatures, the relentless growth of information pollution has devastating effects on our psyche and metal health.
He suggests that we should take concerted and coordinated action to control it – before it destroys us. In the fight against polluted information journalists should be in the forefront and one of the best ways of sanitizing information is to give it a proper source and correct the source whenever the source itself is either deliberately or inadvertently wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment