Hello. Welcome to week five. Last week, we learned about interviews and you also practiced your news-writing skills with an accessible exercise. This week, we're going to give some feedback on that exercise. We're going to talk about some more complicated kinds of interviews and how to manage important sources, and briefly discuss new sources of information for journalists. Finally, we'd like you to listen to an interview, and consider what, if anything, you would publish from it, and why. Also, what further checks you would make, and how you would make decisions regarding that interview. But first, to your writing exercise. Okay, so enough on writing. Now, let's turn to the more complicated issues of dealing with people. Particularly, confidential sources. There are two ways an obligation of confidentiality can arise. A person giving you material, or information says explicitly they're doing so in confidence. Or you receive information or material in circumstances where it's obvious to a reasonable person that it is being imparted in confidence. For instance, if someone's talking to you about their professional life and then they start to talk to you about their health issues or their personal marital issues, it's pretty obvious that they're speaking in confidence. When you accept information in confidence, you have an ethical obligation to keep that confidence because you must not breach the trust that the source has placed in you. Breaching the trust would discourage people from giving journalists information, and that would be against the public interest. And most importantly, you might expose the source to harm. If you receive information that reveals a clear and present threat to public health or public safety, then you do have an ethical obligation to tell the authorities, but you must not reveal where you got the information from. Tell them what you know, but you must still protect your source. There are three types of information that you will get as a journalist. On the record, which is material that may be published and attributed to the source. Background material, which may be published but not attributed to the source. And off the record material, which may be neither published nor attributed to the source. So on the record, material that may be published and attributed. So, the President say or the President waved his arms about, or made an aside which made people life, or cry. So, what people do and what they say on the record may be published. Material you get on background you can't attribute to somebody. So, some phrase like it's understood that In this case, the closure of the factory will lead to the loss of 3,000 jobs. So you find some way of indicating to your audience that you know what you're talking about, but you can't say where you got the information from. Off the record material may not be published at all. You may use it as a lead or a cue to getting a story. Of course, you must then try to verify, but in verifying it, you must not give away the source in any way at all. So this means taking precautions to limit copying, keeping the originals secure and keeping any records secure. Any materials you possess can be subpoenaed by a court or other judicial tribunal. So,if you've stored them away in a place like a mainframe computer, they can be retrieved. And if they're retrieved then your source can be unveiled. And the fact that you've actually had the interaction between the confidential source and yourself, is itself confidential. So, don't gossip about it to your mates or tell people in the hotel or tell your spouse. Keep it to yourself. It's a secret. Of course, it's essential to know whether the material is on the record, on background or off the record. And make sure that you and your source are clear about the status at the start. Don't wait until afterwards. Sometimes, during journalism interviews, people will say look, I want this bit to be off the record. Well that's fine so long as you're absolutely clear about what is on the record, what is on background or off the record. And make sure that you both understand what those terms mean. Sometimes, they're used interchangeably, particularly the background and off the record terms. But the meanings that are accepted are the meanings that you've seen on the slide a minute or two ago. And make sure it's all nailed down at the start. Going off the record is never something to do lightly. Our job as journalists is to publish, not to suppress. And so, when you're being asked to take stuff off the record, particularly large amounts of information, firstly, assess the seriousness of it. How it important is this stuff? And then ask yourself why would my informant want to go off the record? People have all sorts of motives to wanting to get off the record. They may want to take revenge on people. Or they may want to set some heir running. You need to know or at least, as best you can, explore what your informant's motives are. And then think about the consequences for the informant. As you'll see shortly, sometimes the consequences can be severe. And the consequences for you, as a professional of keeping a secret. What if you're called before a court as a witness, or a board of inquiry and asked to reveal a source. Are you prepared to be in contempt of court, and take the consequences? Those consequences can include jail time. So in assessing the seriousness, apply a public interest test. Is the material likely to affect the welfare of the public, the health of the public, the public's choices as citizens, whom they might vote for? Where they may put their money, invest their money, or their capacity to participate in community life. So, this is the sort of material that affects, for example, corruption in sport. A recent example would be the FIFA corruption. And is the information first-hand, or is it just hearsay or gossip? So, assess the information for its quality, for its, what we call its probative or evidentiary quality. And don't accept stuff off the record which is just rubbish. Assessing motive. Is it important that this stuff be revealed because there is some public interest in it? Or is your source just wanting to attack someone from under the cloak of anonymity? Get revenge on someone. Perhaps stimulate a political leadership change. It's a very common when you're covering politics. And sometimes informants will be blinded by zeal. They'll think that something really has to be brought out of the public domain but they haven't really thought about the consequences very carefully, either for themselves, or for the organization they work for, or for the public good generally. Sometimes the zeal blinds them to those considerations. Risks to the informant can be many. Lots and lots of whistle blowers lose their job. Very often that leads to the loss of social standing. It can lead a loss of their family. Sometimes the resulting stressors cause family breakdown. They can sometimes be put in jail for a breach of the law or fined. Sometimes they are at risk of retaliation from violent people. And in a few rare cases, it's been obvious that their life itself has been at risk. There was a dreadful case in Britain, a few years ago where Dr. David Kelley who was a national security specialist was revealed as the source for a panorama program on the so-called sexed-up intelligence that justified the invasion of Iraq. And the day after Dr. Kelly gave evidence to a Parliamentary inquiry in England, he was found dead. And whilst the stated cause has been suicide, there are a lot of questions about that. So, you're getting into very deep water when you get into this area of confidentiality and you need to recognize that the responsibilities on the journalist are heavy. So, what other considerations might there be? Well, possibly, you can get the stuff actually on the record. If you ask your confidential source where you might go for information on the record, they might tell you. Or it might be obvious. It might be possible, for example, to go to another source, a formal source such as an inquiry agency or government department to ask for information which by now you know exists. So the off the record information you can use as a queue for making your own inquiries. How urgent is it? And if there's an urgent threat to public health or safety, of course, that's a consideration. But don't try to lay a false trail, by using false descriptors. If you can't say what your source is, you simply cannot try to mislead people by saying or indicating I got it from, for example, a public official when you didn't at all. And remember that any undertakings that you make by not just you, but your organization. So if you're working for a newspaper or a broadcasting station, then you're binding the editor or the news director of the broadcasting station. And so, if that person asks for details about your source, then you must give them, because you are binding them too. And it's very important that in your dealings with the source, the source understands that this might happen. Some places have laws that protect whistle-blowers. But there are many problems with them. They're often very weak, certainly in Australia. They don't protect people who go to the media. They protect whistle-blowers who go to, for example, the ombudsman, or to the departmental head or a politician. But, of course, very often, that's the last thing the whistle-blower wants to do. They don't trust the ombudsman or certainly, they don't trust their own department very often. The laws are also uncertain in the protections they offer. And certainly again in Australia. They apply largely just to the public sector, except in south Australia. So, you need to be very sure that you know what the limitations of whistle-blower laws are. And a different set of laws are called shield laws. And these allow journalists to claim what's called a privilege against having to disclose, in court, the identity of a confidential source. But they don't always cover people who were doing journalism outside the big media organizations. So, lots of laws say that if you work for a recognized media company, then you will be able to avail yourselves of the shield laws. But if you're just doing freelance work, you may not be able to. And really, in many places, it's not actually an absolute privilege, but a discretion of the court. The court has to weigh the public interest in people taking journalists into their confidence against another public interest, for example, in the administration of justice. So, the shield laws, whilst useful, are also fairly uncertain territory. A different problem with sources occurs when a journalist becomes so dependent, so reliant on a source that they are prepared to suppress or color information in order to avoid embarrassment to the source or difficulties for the source. And of course, that means basically, self-censorship. That means that we are not publishing material for a proper motive, but we are not publishing for an improper motive. And it usually means that we don't report negative material about the source, or the source's organization, or do anything else which is likely to alienate the source. Now that's called capture. And it's a recurring problem for newsroom managers. If you leave people in a round too long, very often they will become captured by their sources. So cultivate multiple sources if you can. Not always possible, but it's a good working rule of thumb. And strive to be accurate and fair in what you publish, because even if sources don't agree with what you've done with their material, or even if it's created some difficulties for them, usually they will respect you if you have been accurate and fair. And part of that is to separate your reportage from commentary. If you're publishing material that you've obtained in this sort of way under the cloak of confidentiality, be very careful not to import commentary into it, because that affects the fairness of the report. And when you do comment, make sure that the comment is fair and grounded in facts that are true. When I say fair, what I mean is, is it the sort of impression that it's reasonable to give considering the facts? Don't burn your sources by betraying trust or exaggerating what you've been told or pushing the boundaries about what's on or off the record or on background. And, above all, don't be inaccurate in what the source has told you. Those four problems are common. And when a journalist behaves like that, sometimes a source won't ever talk to them again. And it's also worth investing time in developing and maintaining the relationship. Don't expect a story every time you have a cup of coffee with the source. Keep the relationship open. Keep it going. Take an interest in the source's professional life. And it will help you to understand the context within which the source is dealing with you, and give you a better appreciation of some of the risks that might be involved when you get material in confidence. Do keep the relationship on a professional footing. Many places, particularly, for example, Parliament houses where you've got lots of ministerial advisors and journalists all living together in a hot house environment. All sorts of relationships can develop, but usually, when these involve confidential sources, those relationships can end badly. And try to see life from your source's point of view. Sometimes the source won't be able to provide you with information. Sometimes they will be taking risks that they know themselves, or that you can help them to understand. Do your best to persuade a source if you need information, but don't put heavy pressure on them. It just won't work. Because, if they have got to the point of trusting you with information, they will give it to you if they feel they can. But if they can't, perhaps because the risks are too great for them, then it's wrong to put pressure on them. And here's an off-the-record scenario that illustrates quite a bit of what I've been talking about. A nurse at the local hospital tells you, off-the-record, That drug-crazed patients are assaulting staff in the emergency department and hospital management have been told, but have done nothing. So, now you've got the hospital, you've got the hospital management, you've got the nurse. Think about how else you might get that story. It's off the record. You can't say that the nurse has rung you up and told you all this.. But there are places you can go, people you could talk to that would enable you to get the story on the record. So, what happens for example, if a drug crazed patient assaults staff at a hospital? Well what do you think a hospital would do? Would the staff ring somebody for assistance? Who might they ring? And then think about who you might ring as a result of that. And once you've confirmed the basic information from perhaps external sources to the hospital, you're in a position then to go to a hospital with it. And at all times, you don't need to reveal who your original source was. Once you've got the stuff on the record from other sources, then you can use that on the record material to get the other side of the story.
