SOURCES CONFIDENTIAL 14 CLAUSE 96 The Editors’ Codebook • www.editorscode.org.uk national security or oforfor prevention disorder crime.” the security national or of justice interests the in necessary is disclosure that court is the of he satisfaction the to which established be it for unless responsible, publication a in contained information of source the toof disclose, contempt forof refusing court guilty person norany is todisclose, aperson require may “Nocourt says: Act Court of Contempt 1981 the of 10 Clause sources. obtain to sources. their phone to records reveal ’ 2000 Act Powers Investigatory of Regulation the under powers their – abused perhaps – used had police the public. best the in made are names their if acting reprisals fear but society of are interests who whistle-blowers be may They is preserved. anonymity theirif matters orsecret confidential about speak only will informants sometimes but – existence actual and motivation credibility, their assess can reader the of society. interests the is to safeguard Press JOURNALISTS Sources Confidential CLAUSE 14 And the law recognises the importance of confidential confidential of importance the recognises law the And that revealed was it when protests were there why is That – stories write you when best are sources On-the-record must if sourcesprotect the their confidential to comment on them. to oncomment them. had that the demonstrate acomplainant to suitable opportunity or allegations the produce substantiate to to material either corroborative involved editor the source, expect would unnamed an IPSO from material on hinged complaint a If sources. unnamed from story a of corroboration record on-the- obtain to made be should efforts possible, Wherever as a shield toused by defendjournalists inaccurate reporting. meetings. record can CCTV and betracked phones mobile when can –particularly names their revealing not than further much goes identities their protecting society, ain surveillance increasingly we live flow have on would information. free of the disclosure such effect chilling the of because watchdog public as Press rolethe of undermine the could seriously sources their reveal to journalists forcing that warned and ofexpression freedom force to to right his violated attempt story a for an source his reveal to that him ruled It Rights. Human of Court the of Goodwin Bill trainee case, such one In sources. There would be a particular responsibility on editors to editors on responsibility particular a be would There At the same time, the obligation of confidenceshould not be as although, sources their guard jealously journalists So Even so, courts do attempt to force tojournalists reveal their WHAT THE confidential sources of information. of sources confidential to protect obligation haveamoral Journalists Engineer took a landmark case to the European to European case the took a landmark magazine CODE SAYS give a reasonable opportunity of reply to complainants who clear at the beginning of an interview that certain information 97 felt they were victims of allegations from an unnamed source. is to remain private – or, if published, is not to be attributed to A in The Times relied on a confidential source in them. If their instructions are ignored there may be grounds CLAUSE 14 an that criticised the Parliamentary Assembly for the for making a complaint either under Clause 3 (Privacy) or CONFIDENTIAL Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Code of Practice. SOURCES PA). The was found to have breached Clause 1 “For those unused to dealing with the Press, there may be (Accuracy). grounds for complaint if a journalist has deliberately enticed IPSO said the newspaper was entitled to make use of (perhaps by false assurances of confidentiality) information information provided by a confidential source. However, from someone who does not understand that the details – it had relied on this source without taking additional steps which are private in nature – may actually be published.” to investigate or corroborate the information on which the And the PCC warned: “People should be aware that if they article’s characterisation was based, which might include speak to a journalist and do not categorically state that the obtaining additional on-the-record information or contacting conversion is ‘off the record’, it may well be regarded as ‘on the complainant to obtain his comment before publication. the record’.” As the newspaper considered itself prevented by Clause 14 A professor of ocean physics complained to IPSO when The from disclosing the information provided by its source, it was Times ran a story headlined: “Climate scientist fears murder unable to demonstrate that it had taken care not to publish by hitman.” inaccurate information. The article was based on an interview with the Solash v The Times: www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution- complainant, in which he expressed concern that several statements/ruling/?id=04036-15 scientists researching the impact of global warming on Arctic ice might have been assassinated. There are very few complaints under Clause 14 – and often It reported that the complainant said there were only four www.editorscode.org.uk breaches are the result of carelessness or inexperience. people in Britain, including himself, who were “really leaders” The PCC laid down useful guidelines for reporting “off the on ice thickness in the Arctic, and three of these individuals record” information. It said it would generally distinguish had died in 2013. It quoted the professor as saying: “It seems between cases involving people who regularly deal with the to me to be too bizarre to be accidental but each individual media and cases involving people with little or no knowledge incident looks accidental, which may mean it’s been made to of how the Press operates. look accidental.” The PCC said: “When an interviewee has a lot of experience, The complainant said the article misrepresented he or she will probably be well aware that they should make comments he had made to the journalist, and his conversation The Editors’ Codebook • SOURCES CONFIDENTIAL 14 CLAUSE 98 The Editors’ Codebook • www.editorscode.org.uk journalist was intended forhad Thepublication. complainant journalist a with interview an of course the in provided he information his complaint. of course the in request such any to reference made he had nor source, confidential a as treated be he that interview the during requested not had complainant the basis. instance, this In confidential a on information provide of who identity sources the protect to journalists on obligation moral a ‘on to back “switching the record’”. was he that complainant the had told journalist the section, this of end the the At of conversation. part record” the “off the during complainant the by forintended and publication. prior the conversation to aware point that was “on the record” go that“off hewas conversation the the clear record”, making have been assassinated. might scientists fellow that concern his conversation the to introduced had and reporter the to length at and freely spoke media, the with dealing at in place in relation to the interview. Itwas said the complainant was practised agreement confidentiality any that denied newspaper The article. the in the him to all made attributed statements complainant the which in complainant, with the conversation journalist’s the of recording a provided intended not and record” the for publication. “off was reporter the with Rather, his concern related to the question of whether whether of question the to related concern his Rather, imposes 14 Clause said It complaint. the rejected IPSO provided material published not had newspaper The that requested complainant the point one at that noted It It Code. the of breach a accept not did newspaper The without censure.” without pass not could Code the of breach of unnecessary and obvious sources an such and , of confidential principle basic of a is information protection Commission’s the the of but extent criticism, the limited made been had it. from details complainant’s the removing without comment, for RPA the to email the forwarded reporter The her of some anonymous. remain to share asked but agency, the to of experiences email by newspaper the contacted (RPA) Agency Payments Rural the of employee former A 14. statements/ruling/?id=04762-15 www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution- Times: vThe Wadhams be published. had made might he comments any that and record”, the “on place taken had conversation ofthe rest the that awareness his demonstrated were no details published, should take place “offwhich the record”. from This interview, his of section one that requested reveal their identity. might inthat the story details there arisk not is named, Evensource is if aconfidential ThePCC said:“Thethat newspaper’smistake acceptance a Clause of breach a to led reporter trainee a by mistake A

A woman v Evening Chronicle (Newcastle upon Tyne): www.pcc. 99 org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NDA2MQ CLAUSE 14 Even if a confidential source is not named, there is a risk CONFIDENTIAL that details in the story might reveal their identity. SOURCES A man talked to a newspaper about the proposed closure of Burnley’s mortuary on condition that he was not identified. However, the article referred to him as “a worker at Burnley’s mortuary”. Because he was one of only two people who worked at the mortuary – the other was his boss – his employers were able to identify him as the source of the information. He was subsequently dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct for making his remarks to the newspaper. The PCC said the newspaper had gone some way to protecting the complainant as a source of information, and his identification appeared to have been unintentional. But given that the need for confidentiality had been agreed between the parties, the onus was on the newspaper to establish whether the form of words it proposed to use would have effectively identified the complainant. A man v Lancashire Telegraph: www.pcc.org.uk/cases/ adjudicated.html?article=NDgyNQ www.editorscode.org.uk The Editors’ Codebook •