Updated: Not All 'Confidential' Sources Created Equal at Gannett

By: Joe Strupp As newspapers deal with the fallout from last week's jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and reluctant disclosure of an anonymous source by Time's Matthew Cooper, at least one newspaper chain is reminding its journalists that not all confidential sources, under certain circumstances, will remain confidential.

In a column for an internal employee newsletter posted Friday on Gannett's Web site, Phil Currie, Gannett senior vice president/news, discussed the recent Miller/Cooper case, noting that editors had already begun to ask him about the chain's anonymous source policies.

While Currie noted that the use of anonymous sources remained valuable and important, he also reminded staffers of the company's Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms. He noted that the Principles do allow for unnamed sources under certain, careful circumstances, because certain circumstances can require that. At the same time, another Principle states: 'We will obey the law.'"

Currie then went on to note that the same list of principles urges reporters to make clear to sources the "level of confidentiality," even listing three degrees of confidential protection.

"Make clear to sources the level of confidentiality agreed to," Curries quotes the policy as saying. "This does not mean each option must be discussed with the source, but each party should understand the agreement. Among the options are: (a) The newspaper will not name them in the article; (b) the newspaper will not name them unless a court compels the newspaper to do so; (c) the newspaper will not name them under any circumstances."

In his column, Currie adds, "This understanding alone can help sources know to what degree the protection will be extended. Frankly, some circumstances do not merit going to 'level c,' and everyone should be clear on that."

But, he later stresses that, "Nevertheless, there are times when highest protection is appropriate."

Through a company spokesperson, Currie reached E&P on Tuesday to say "the piece speaks for itself."

Currie added that the article was designed "to prompt editors to think through the use of unnamed sources and discuss the issue in their newsrooms, to underscore that in most cases newspapers should avoid use of unnamed sources, and to make certain in those rare instances when they are used that everyone understands the ground rules.

"As the E&P article did note, the NEWS WATCH piece also pointed out that there are times when the highest protection is appropriate," Currie wrote via e-mail.