Welcome to Episode 10 of the Reporters Shop Talk, I'm Stu Campaigne, a reporter at BayToday, here today with my colleague Dave Dale. We’re going to go over something that we were batting back and forth about anonymous sources used in our work, basically when it's OK to use one, how we approach using one, maybe you could start us off with something from your experience.
Dave: Well, if we define it as an anonymous source that's being quoted and the main subject of a story, if we just sort of keep to that definition, that's a lot different than taking an anonymous source and moving forward with the story, but not quoting them and then getting other information. Right.
So when we're talking about using anonymous sources as your primary source and their actual quotes are being used, I was taught that that should be like a once in a lifetime rarity kind of thing. When I was going to school, it was really frowned upon and it had very little use throughout my career. I don't even think I have ever done it. I might have done it once. I see it happening a whole lot more. Now things seem to have evolved. It's either more acceptable or people are just not holding the standard. So I'm not sure. I know you had an anonymous source for a story you did recently, and I want you to explain that.
Stu: OK, so I think you're talking about the Sunset Park story…a case where this was a group of neighbours who are basically complaining to get attention because they feel like they're being wronged. They feel like the adjacent property is being overused by recreational vehicles. It's a boat launch. So they've had some problems in the area with the various complaints that are more like by-law issues.
I go over there, I see what's going on with my own eyes, and I have decided, OK, there is a story here as far as nuisance people driving their snowmobiles and cars and trucks at all hours of the night. Is it dangerous for the emergency vehicles to get in? It seems to be, although not as big a part of the story as I thought. I double-checked. So, you know, I did my due diligence. I checked with the fire department. They checked with the city, you know, and the city acknowledged, yes, we've spoken to this group of people, but there's really not a lot we're going to do about it, basically. So then we decided to go ahead with the story. Basically, it ends up being kind of a one-sided thing, although, like I said, I did check out various angles with the city. And I use some parts of the city's response in the story. So it wasn't like it was just their side. But then the women I spoke to, who were the main complainants, decide they don't want to use their names.
I was hesitant already, but I had asked them to give me a list of neighbours names in the area that had also signed their petition and had the complaints. So I had that in hand. Now, at this point, I'm taking their word for it that these names are legitimate. I don't expect that they've made these things up. So I'm OK to go ahead with that. Normally, I would have gone and knocked on a few doors, but with the state of emergency we're under, that was something I wasn't willing to do just to show up unannounced to someone's house. I just didn't feel like the risk to anybody's health or doing the wrong thing was worth finding out that they signed this petition. So I'm giving them, they've been pretty straight with me, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. So now they don't want to use their names. And they say that they're afraid of retribution. They were worried that down the line someone might do something stupid and perhaps damage their property or even if they find it dangerous to pull out of their driveway, they're worried that people might, you know, zip up and down there even more just to kind of rub it in their faces.
So at this point, I've got a story written and I have taken their names out. And it was mostly the one lady that gave me most of the information. The other one corroborated the story. So I wasn't concerned they were making the story up. But I never felt like they were asking to be kept anonymous because of any other reason than what they were telling me. And it really didn't make a difference to me whether their names were in the story or not. I think it's pretty self-evident to anyone who knows the area who was complaining. You do have a point? I am not a big fan of it all, and I think, you know, I approached you while this was all being kind of worked out that I didn't want to go that way, but it was the only way I could go on with the story.
Dave: Did you fear if you didn't do the story or you say you're not going to do it if they don't put their names to it, that another media outlet would do it?
Stu: No, I didn't have a sense of that. I kind of knew we had the whole story before everyone else. I got the sense that they were legitimately afraid, and I think that was enough for me.
There are two ways to go with anonymous sources, whether some people think like, you know, Deep Throat is an anonymous source. That's not the kind of anonymous source we're talking about. We're talking about when we know that people are giving us the information, we're just not attributing the words to them. And it's a slippery slope for sure.
Dave: Well, it's the matter of a precedent, really, it's not even about everything you just talked about with the story or whatnot. It just sets a precedent that people will want anonymity more every time they see a degree of it. It's basically how I've been brought up. We normally used to fight tooth and nail against it.
Stu: One of my follow up emails to them after the story came out, I touched base with them right after, I usually do that with stories like this when they're kind of controversial, and I just said, you know, 'this would be the next logical step.' We talked about them going to city council and all that. But I did say, 'I don't see anywhere, any way I can continue to protect your identities.' Obviously, if they're going to present at city council, they're going to do it in a public forum and they're going to have to give their names. So I just said, 'If that's the way the story goes, there won't be any more anonymous protection.'
And they didn't seem to like that. So, you know, maybe I should have done that in the first place. I don't know. Again, it was more…I didn't really want to do it that way, but I didn't have a choice. Sometimes I think you got to just go on. And I was encouraged to continue with it, too. So it wasn't really all my call. I guess I could have refused to do it.
I don't think that was a choice I'm willing to go to right now. But you're right. I'm not proud of any of it. I know the story's true. I think that makes a difference to me. And I checked everything, like I knew what they're saying was going on. So I wasn't worried about that part of it. But I had no sources besides the two people that wouldn't give their names.
Dave:
When I talk about how we used to fight tooth and nail against it, I'm remembering editors telling me we're not doing it. 'Go convince them or move on to something else.' Right. So it was black and white. It was not in this circumstance. It's not a Deep Throat situation where there's more to gain than to lose.
I say this, but I was at the Kapuskasing Northern Times. At one point there was somebody, a mole inside the city…writing columns for the Northern Times without their name. So we actually had a weekly columnist almost who was giving everybody the back door info that had the newspaper’s protection.
But I think that was where the benefit outweighed the situation. Meanwhile, for the normal stories, we were told no anonymous sources, period. Mostly I think it’s just sort of ingrained in me the fact that it sets a precedent and makes it more difficult going forward the more we do it.
Stu: I agree. I totally agree with you.
Dave: I'm not actually even judging you for doing anything wrong in this case. In fact, it sounds like you did what you had to do to get the story, I think, what, we had 20,000 shares?
Stu: I don't know what it was, but I mean, it was one of our biggest stories of the new year. But am I writing this to churn people up or am I writing it because it's news and it's very blurred sometimes, I guess, is what I'm trying to say?
Dave: The golden formula for news is being interesting, relevant, and informative. It certainly was relevant at the time and people were interested.
Stu: So I don't think it turned out all that bad. But I mean, I don't think I'd do it the same way again if I had the choice.
