Excessive use of unnamed sources undermines reporting
It might be old-fashioned, but good journalism means ‘show your work’
Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks at an announcement in Iqaluit in March as Nunavut Premier P.J. Akeeagok looks on. A Radio-Canada report during the recent election campaign cites unnamed sources to question Carney’s version of his first phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump. (File photo by Daron Letts)
Could Donald Trump himself or White House staff have tipped off Radio-Canada that he had mentioned Canada becoming the 51st state during his first phone call with Mark Carney back in March? Maybe?
Could the newly minted Canadian prime minister or someone in the Prime Minister’s Office have been the one who told the French-language public broadcaster that Trump’s fixation with annexing Canada did actually come up in that first call? Maybe?
We just don’t know.
Just days before the April 28 federal election, Radio-Canada reported the U.S. president in fact did use his “51st state” rhetoric during his March 28 phone call with the Canadian prime minister.
It was important news because after the call, Carney had told reporters that Trump had respected Canada’s sovereignty during the private call.
The report made it look like Carney, who portrayed himself on the campaign trail as Canada’s best option for standing up to Trump, hadn’t given Canadians a full account of his first interaction with the president.
Radio-Canada should have identified its source for the story about the Carney-Trump phone call.
Instead, it cited two sources familiar with the discussions (“au fait des discussions”).
Radio-Canada was right. When asked about it after the report, Carney confirmed Trump had indeed used the “51st state” language during their phone call.
What does this have to do with Nunavut or Nunavik?
When Nunatsiaq News reported the Inuit Child First Initiative’s universal food-voucher program had been effectively cancelled, it named the sources.
An email from a federal bureaucrat to a Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. employee was the evidence needed to report that the Department of Indigenous Services was no longer going to approve funding for universal food-voucher programs.
In the past 10 years, national news organizations have become increasingly comfortable using unnamed sources. Too frequently, you’ll see news attributed to unnamed sources who are “not authorized to speak publicly.” (You should ask yourself why they’re not authorized to speak publicly.)
When news outlets do that, it amounts to saying, “trust us,” while the journalistic tradition has been like high school math class — “show your work.”
Part of the shift is because governments (of all political stripes) have become so controlling of their messages. Another reason for the change is that many politicians and bureaucrats don’t want to be accountable for what they say.
Nunatsiaq News has generally resisted the temptation to grant public servants (and other sources) anonymity.
Good journalism requires transparency, which is why the standard has been to tell readers how a newspaper gets its information.
Readers should know why information is coming out at this particular time.
The number of people who were in the know about the Carney-Trump phone call is likely small. Why would one of them leak a tidbit that contradicts Carney’s version of the call, four days before the election?
It’s important for readers to know the source of information reported to them. Readers can then decide for themselves how much credibility to give it, how important it is, and how trustworthy both the source and the news organization are.
Journalism should be about pursuing the truth, and holding our elected leaders to account full stop. Ideally, this should involve named sources but sometimes good sources wish to remain anonymous for their own reasons.
Radio Canada was absolutely justified in relying on unnamed sources because those sources were accurate, truthful and credible. Those sources established that Carney deliberately misled Canadians that Trump at all times respected Canadian sovereignty in their call when that simply was not true. He misled Canadians on that for his political advantage, and Radio Canada should be commended for exposing it.
If journalists sometimes have to use unnamed sources to expose the lies of politicians, so be it!!!
Not to mention mainstream media receiving funding from the Federal Liberals. No wonder Canadians don’t trust mainstream media any more knowing they’ve been bought out!
So is excessive use of PR memos in journalism. It’s rare that NN goes beyond that or just a few people giving their piece. It would benefit the whole region if there was more room for points and counterpoints.
Unfortunately, the North has a tendency to bully people who don’t participate in a bunch of programs. That’s when you should allow unnamed sources.
Unnamed sources are usually about as credible as Facebook posts from racist q-anon uncles we all have.
This is simplistic, and a fallacy
Not that my opinion matters, but at any time that one expresses an opinion on any public media (including Nunatsiaq News ), it should be done with your real name. Not anonimously (sp). Fake names etc.
Often I will see a comment made that I would like to discuss with the composer, but, am unable to talk to privately
I find myself, on a Monday morning, agreeing with John Murphy. Am I in bizarro world?
This is an important overview of journalism standards, to show why journalists have to uphold unbiased, impartial and independent information, to allow the public to make informed decisions for themselves in understanding how their priorities are reflected by governments. Qujannamiik.
Instead of an editorial, I would encourage Nunatsiaq News to continue teaching and orientating the general public of these basic journalism standards. Nunavut has other media avenues in television, radio and print but governments have communication policies or protocols to ensure uniformity of messaging. Sometimes journalists, particularly in television and radio media, try to bypass these communications protocols to find a quicker source of internal information, so it becomes a challenge when a politician is placed on reactive or response mode on the spot. There needs to be a better balance of upholding journalist standards on both sides of governments and journalists.
Calling out the public broadcaster for how they choose to report on things in an op-ed is unnecessary when Nunatsiaq News uses far more questionable practices in the production of its own journalism.
The constant regurgitation of press releases is one example, more problematic ones include harassing sources, harming communities and sticking to the few folks that will still talk to journalists at the paper, who are basically people that have not yet been harmed by the publication at this point.
By the way, where are the Inuit journalists at Nunatsiaq? What makes Corey Larocque think his opinions on journalism benefit Nunavummiut?
Perhaps we don’t need more op-eds talking about how other news organizations do their work, we need to know more about the editorial decisions Nunatsiaq makes for the articles it publishes.
Saying you have resisted the temptation for something like granting sources anonymity tells us the bare minimum, why should anyone believe a paper that has consistently produced journalism that is not in service of the community?
In a wonderful twist of irony, Nunatsiaq News published two front page articles this week that rely on anonymous sources: a parent who shall not be named complaining about their child getting a shiner at school, and anonymous complaints about a Nunavut foster home in Kinngait. Perhaps take your own advice about transparency in journalism, Corey, rather than trying to claim that Nunatsiaq is any different.
Nunatsiaq is desperate to re-gain credibility. Nobody wants to talk with them anymore. They burned all the bridges in our communities.
Great article Corey. Journalists need to start being journalists again and not gossip columns.