I have usually been wary of the things people say.

            It has become my instinct to ask, “Where did you hear that? Who told you that?” whenever people tell me something new. I have wondered more than once how gossip and rumors get started. And I have always considered a person’s motive for sharing so much without my prompting.

            Perhaps I have been thinking like a journalist without really knowing it. While journalists usually prefer a person’s word to a document, they must be wary about what the person says, and for a number of reasons.

 

Biases and emotions can easily come into play.

Someone may choose to speak to journalists precisely because of emotions: it is the reason why showbiz personalities air their dirty linen in public rather than talk it over without involving the media. However, while emotions can cause some to speak up, it may prompt others to keep quiet. People who can be gold mines of information may choose to stay quiet out of fear for their lives, for example.

            Biases are also another reason why journalists should be wary of their sources. While no one is free of biases, a journalist should always keep his in check in order to come out with the story as objectively as he can. But sources do not have this concern of objectivity. Rather, their stand is highly subjective: if for example, Arlyn dela Cruz was tapped as a source of information regarding the Abu Sayyaf, one would have to be a little wary about the relationships she may have formed with the bandits. As the Newsbreak article points out, she calls Khaddafy Janjalani “Daf”, which may suggest a certain level of intimacy between the two of them. If they are indeed intimate with each other, one can wonder if Arlyn can still retain her journalistic objectivity and speak against him if she has to.

            It is for these reasons that a journalist should not get too close to the source. For if the source’s biases and emotions can come into play and affect whatever he says, the journalist’s biases and emotions towards the source can also come into play and affect the way the story is written. I believe that, difficult as it may be, there should always be a conscious effort to keep these in check whenever one writes a story.

 

There may be ulterior motives behind words.

             Aside from biases and emotions, vested interests and money can also be reasons why sources choose to speak. They may be paid off or bribed into giving false information, so journalists should not be so quick to trust their word. Sources may also be scared into silence if there is a threat on their lives and the lives of their loved ones, as Glenda Gloria mentioned.

            She had also mentioned that sources sometimes demand for exclusivity. This leads one to suspect that this person might be talking only to put himself in the limelight and gain publicity for himself, which is why he does not want the journalists to interview the other side or get the same story verified by other sources.

            Whatever the reasons may be, a journalist should be wary of any motives that the source may have. I think that it helps to look at the timeliness of the source’s decision to speak up and the context of the situation. If the issue has been dead for a long time, why is this person suddenly making noise? If the issue is hot right now, could the source be taking advantage of it so that he can get something for himself? Because of the presence of ulterior motives, there is a need for journalists to be more sensitive and try to read between the lines by putting the source’s words in proper context.

 

Sources are coming from a different side of the issue.

            One must consider that journalists and sources are coming from two different sides. On the one hand, you have the sources of information. Their main concern is usually their own welfare: what will happen to them if they decide to speak up? Will they be better off (because of money or fame and fortune, among other reasons), or will they have death threats for breakfast, and live with their lives in danger? The implications of their actions and the consequences they have to live with are always at the back of the sources’ minds.

            Journalists, on the other hand, are concerned with the public’s need to know. The information that the source holds is usually more important than the source himself. Hence, journalists can sometimes put their sources in compromising situations. For instance, if the person loses his or her job, the journalists will not always be around to offer a new source of income for that person: they may disappear once they have the information they need.

            Because of the difference in perspective, sometimes the tables are turned: instead of the journalist being wary of the source, the source of information becomes wary of the journalist for exactly the same reasons: ulterior motives, emotions and biases, and a different understanding of the issue at hand.

            The relationship between a journalist and his source is very important to a news story. It can definitely affect the quality of the story. In the first place, the source has to be credible. Otherwise, the story will fall apart: how can you trust the word of someone who is not trustworthy to begin with?

This is why citing anonymous sources can weaken the foundation of a story, making it easier for the audience to doubt that the information is true. If the reader sees that the source is anonymous, they have no basis to judge whether the source –and subsequently, the information—is credible or not.

            The audiences can further question credibility if the journalist lets his own biases seep through the story. For instance, a newspaper that is anti-government through and through will always be suspected of seeking out only anti-government sources for their articles. As it chooses to harp on all the government’s failings, the ability to report news objectively –and consequently, the paper’s credibility—has been compromised by the anti-government bias.

            In the end, a journalist should always take the information with a grain of salt and he must always seek to verify it. It all boils down to a question of credibility, both of the source and of the journalist.