Short Cuts
#9 Two Annoying Jerks
Simon Houpt and Jesse talk about their own journalism
January 22, 2015

Simon Houpt, Senior Media Writer for The Globe and Mail, accepts Jesse’s challenge to defend his profile of Jesse on CANADALAND.

* Raw audio of the complete interview.

* Simon and Jesse’s original correspodence about the “faked” CBC story.

Here is the full text of the scenario sent to various senior journalists, mentioned by Jesse in the episode:

Scenario

A reporter tells a source that he has an “on the record” allegation about him, would he care to respond?

The source responds.

The piece runs. The source is quoted, responding to the allegation about him. No-one is quoted as having made the allegation. The source’s response to the allegation, the reporter writes, is disputed by certain people, who are not named or quoted, nor is the substance of their dispute included.

When the source later asks the reporter what happened to the “on the record” allegation, the reporter responds that his source for the allegation was indeed “on the record” but “not for attribution”.

Question

Has the reporter acted ethically?

RESPONSES

Daniel Okrent, first public editor of the New York Times:

“Profoundly unethical – and amateurish, too.”

Dan Gillmor, director of the Knight Centre at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism:

“I always thought “on the record” meant fully quotable, with name attached.”

Ed Wasserman, Dean of UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. 

“The source deserved to be as fully informed as possible about the allegation before responding to it.

It appears that the reporter took refuge in an arcane (and, arguably, imaginary) distinction between ‘off the record’ and “not for attribution’.

I think that was squirrelly and borderline deceitful. To the degree the source was induced to comment because s/he believed the accuser would be fully identified, that representation was materially misleading.

No way would that make it into a ‘best practices’ guide for reporters. Whether this was careless or deliberate, it’s not something reporters ought to do.”

Here is the pertinent section of the Canadian Association of Journalists’ ethics guidelines, cited by Simon Houpt:

We only promise anonymity when the material is of high public interest and it cannot be obtained any other way. (See TRANSPARENCY, above.) And when we make these promises to sources, we keep them.

Because we may be ordered by a court** or judicial inquiry to divulge confidential sourcesupon threat of jail, we must understand what we are promising. These promises – and the lengths we’re willing to go to keep them – should be clearly spelled out as part of our promise. The following phrases, if properly explained, may be helpful:

Not for attribution: We may quote statements directly but the source may not be named, although a general description of his or her position may be given (“a government official,” or “a party insider”). In TV, video or radio, the identity may be shielded by changing the voice or appearance.

On background: We may use the essence of statements and generally describe the source, but we may not use direct quotes.

Off the record: We may not report the information, which can be used solely to help our own understanding or perspective. There is not much point in knowing something if it can’t be reported, so this undertaking should be used sparingly, if at all.

When we are not willing to go to jail to protect a source, we say so before making the promise. And we make it clear that the deal is off if the source lies or misleads us.

More from this series
The woes of fancy restaurants across Canada have been percolating - Who are we supposed to relate to? And the saga of the New York Times hit podcast comes to a close. Writer and restaurant-owner Jen Agg co-hosts. 
October 14, 2021
Jesse was not on board with #CdnMediaFailed when it came to the story on Trudeau in Tofino. And attacks on journalists might be more of a Canadian problem than we care to admit.
October 7, 2021
The release of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig shows what China really thinks about Canada. And Maxime Bernier asks his followers to "play dirty" with reporters. Jan Wong co-hosts.
September 30, 2021
We look back on the coverage of an absolutely underwhelming, demoralizing election. And we contend with a troubling aspect of Norm Macdonald’s legacy.
September 23, 2021
Trudeau is getting upset and it seems to be working for him. And the English leaders' debate was widely derided. Was it deserved?
September 16, 2021
After protestors threw gravel at the Prime Minister during a campaign stop, we ask: has this gotten too much coverage, or not enough? And we scrutinize a budding conspiracy about Michael Spavor, the Canadian entrepreneur detained in China.
September 9, 2021
Many journalists are condemning the unruly protestors following Trudeau on the campaign trail. But is that our role? And co-host Jen Agg talks about how she became the centre of a major story after dealing with her own unruly protestors at her restaurants.
September 2, 2021
Twitter became the centre of the election this week when they put a "manipulated media” tag on one of Chrystia Freeland’s tweets, which contained an edited video of Conservative leader Erin O’Toole. And is science journalism at a crisis point in Canada? An analysis finds Canada’s biggest newspapers gave about half as much coverage to the IPCC’s major recent climate report as US ones did.
August 26, 2021
all podcasts arrow All Podcasts
Short Cuts