On background
During Diane King’s “Your Money” segment on HLN (CNN’s Headline News) Wednesday morning, she reported that the Federal Reserve may be willing to be more open with the public.
According to a bank “official,” who was speaking on background, the Federal Reserve was not ruling out regular news conferences to discuss monetary policy. In addition to the conferences, King reported that the cloaked official said that an informational section may be added to the bank’s Web site that will “communicate more clearly and broadly.”
King disclosed that the unidentified source was speaking on background because he or she didn’t have authorization to go on the record.
Red flags indicating breaches of journalism ethics are popping up in my mind. Is King’s use of “on background” in line with the original intent of this method of information gathering from a news source who doesn’t want to be identified? Or is King misusing the method that is typically reserved for briefing journalists who are investigating an issue?
Although King said the bank official was speaking on background, ultimately, this means that the source is anonymous.
According to Poynter Online, reporters should consider several things before agreeing to use information from confidential sources. Among the considerations, the story should be “of overwhelming public concern.” Is this story about the Federal Reserve possibly deciding to be more communicative with the public important enough to grant the official anonymity?
Second, Poynter says that the journalist “should be willing to reveal to the public why the source cannot be named.” King did disclose that the source didn’t have authorization to go on the record, but one of the first questions in my mind was why didn’t the bank give permission? Did King even ask this question? If so, why wasn’t the official’s response included in the story?
Lastly, Poynter says that reporters should ask if the source “deserve[s] the protection of his/her identity”? This ties into the first and second criteria.
As a journalist, I understand that beating the competition to publish the news first is important. However, the credibility of a reporter and the news organization for which he or she works, largely rests with trust. Viewers and readers trust that the media are reporting the most accurate information of available, and when they use unidentified sources, there is a good reason.
In this instance, I’m not convinced that King’s decision to use information that was obtained on background met the criteria that Poynter has outlined. And critical news consumers should be asking the same questions.
Leave a Reply