PressEthic

The Washington Post got the scoop today with this article. It’s big news about the U.S. government using secret prisons to hide terror suspects.

I don’t know what has happened in these secret prisons, and I’m not sure that I want to know. But, I do want to discuss the use of confidential sources in the article. Of course, in a situation like this, a reporter is not going to get the story without granting anonymity. However, I do think reporters, editors and readers need to be very skeptical of the information provided.

At the very least, we should question the motivation of the sources. In other words, why are these sources providing this information now? One could answer this a variety of ways. The sources might be legitimately concerned about the detainees and the treatment they are receiving in these secret prisons. Or, maybe they simply think the public has a right to know about the prisons. Or, perhaps their motivation is an attempt to further the public’s negative opinion about the war itself. And then again, maybe it’s none of these.

But, without knowing the motivation of the sources - or anything about their identity that might help us determine their motivation, can we put the information in context? Is it necessary to understand a source’s motivation when considering the credibility of the information he or she is providing? I would argue that it is.

A good case in point is the WMD reporting. If the various reporters involved understood – or just questioned – the motivation of their sources, perhaps they would have attempted to verify the information their sources provided. And, perhaps we would not be at war.

As in the case of the secret prisons, I think the Washington Post has made every effort to confirm the information provided by its sources with research and background, but one can never be too sure. I hope, for the Washington Post’s sake, that all of the information provided by these anonymous sources is accurate. My hope is that more information will become available in the near future, and that it will further confirm the claims of the reporter’s sources.