Watchdog ConferenceWatchdog ConferenceReporters Wrestle With How to Use SourcesName them? Socialize with them? Trust them?On May 15, 1999, journalists met at <strong>Harvard</strong> <strong>University</strong> to talk about the relationshipsthat reporters have with their sources and to examine the potential consequences posedby changes in how sources are treated by reporters and how sources treat reporters. Thisconference was convened as the second in a series of conferences sponsored by theWatchdog Journalism Project at the <strong>Nieman</strong> <strong>Foundation</strong>. Reporters whose investigationshave garnered many awards shared insights, concerns and advice about ways inwhich members of the press can work more effectively with sources and thereby avoid theloss of journalistic credibility that many in the profession believe is related to the rise inuse of anonymous sources.This section of <strong>Nieman</strong> Reports contains excerpts from observations made byparticipants at this Watchdog Journalism Project conference and an article about presscoverage of Whitewater. This article exemplifies some problems that arise when reportersare misled by an anonymous source’s information. What follows is a guide to these topics:Introduction: Reporting on government, national security, nonprofits and business.List of conference panel members.Naming SourcesFalse Sources and Misleading Information“In Reporting on Whitewater, an Anonymous Source Misinformed the Press,” an articleby Gilbert CranbergReporters’ Relationships With SourcesHow the Real Story Gets Told in PicturesThe Role of Reporter’s JudgmentWhen Reporters are Shut Out By SourcesStages of Reporting: Finding and Using SourcesVerifying What Sources SayWorking With Key SourcesThe Roles Editors PlayImpact of Investigative Stories<strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 1999 3
Watchdog Conference‘Watchdog journalism is the only function ofjournalism that justifies the freedom thatjournalists enjoy in this country.’Bill Kovach, Curator, <strong>Nieman</strong> <strong>Foundation</strong>Bill Kovach began the conference with introductoryremarks focused on coverage of the Clinton/Lewinsky storywhich, in his view, epitomizes many of the consequences ofa shift in how sources are used.This year, the Clinton/Lewinsky story has highlighted theextraordinary degree to which American reporting, especiallyin Washington, has put itself in a position to bemanipulated by those who have a vital interest in the outcomeof the story. One impact of the new technology hasbeen to shift the power relationship toward the sources ofthe information and away from the news organizations thatcover them. Increasingly, sources usurp the gate-keepingrole of the journalist to dictate the terms of the interaction,the conditions under which the information will be released,and the timing of publication. This is a power shift sodramatic that I believe it can destroy journalistic independenceand certainly it changes the whole notion of journalisticdistance.If you think this is a radical conclusion, we now have thetestimony of Michael Isikoff in his book, “Uncovering Clinton,”in which he says he realized that he stepped across the linefrom being a reporter to a participant. “I was trying toinfluence the action of the players,” he wrote of trying topersuade Lucianne Goldberg and Linda Tripp not to negotiatea book deal that would compromise the credibility ofhis sources. “As a reporter, that’s not my job,” Isikoff goes onto tell us. “But I didn’t realize something else. I was at thispoint too involved to avoid influencing the players of thestory.”Some argue that the ultimate outcome of the story—President Clinton’s ultimate admissions—is a vindication ofthe press’s role in the unfolding story. But this “ends justifythe means” argument is, as former Washington Post reporterMurrey Marder has reminded us, too self-serving for any selfrespectingjournalist to make….For those who are convinced that watchdog journalism—the monitoring of the institutions of power—is the centralpurpose of a free press, it is vital that we examine thereporter/source relationship and how it shapes our reportingtoday.• How much socializing among reporters and sources isacceptable?• How much information trading is acceptable?• What about giving advice to a private source?• What about helping a source financially?• Can a reporter deceive a source, expose a source? If so,when and why?It is questions such as these that we hope to explore andexamine today. We do so in the hope that with enoughthought and enough discussion we can begin to find ways toredress the imbalance of power between reporters andsources that the competitive atmosphere of the new technologyand the new economic organization of the journalismbusiness have created.As moderator of the discussion about reporting onnonprofits, Kovach also explained why it is increasinglyimportant that journalists retain their role as vigilantwatchdogs of these organizations at a time when the socialservice work of large public agencies is diminishing.Most news organizations do not and have not coverednonprofits. But as the power of government devolves, andit’s devolving rapidly to state and local government in termsof social programs, those aspects of public life are, in manycases, being picked up by or left to nonprofit organizationsto handle. And in this time of enormous wealth creationduring the past decade, an awful lot of money has movedinto fewer and fewer hands at the top of the economicstructure of our country. More and more of those peoplewho are collecting more and more personal fortune arechoosing to withdraw their support from government byinvesting their profits in nonprofit organizations targeted tothings in which they are personally interested.As broad-based support for public programs dissipates,the power of nonprofits again is becoming more and moreimportant to how our society is structured….Since 1970, this area of nonprofit organizations has grownfour times faster than the overall economy, which itself has4 <strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 1999