Use of anonymous sources

I think readers correctly assume that, almost invariably, the reason for concealing someone's identity is to protect them from negative repercussions. Depending on the circumstances, revealing information to the press can jeopardise your career, risk a criminal prosecution, or even endanger your life. And some people, odd as it may seem, would simply be embarrassed if others knew they had spoken to a journalist.

I personally think the use of anonymous informants can be vital, since such people, by their very nature, supply information which usually cannot be obtained via official channels. Often, it will be in the public interest. The best way to use such people is for them, through leaks or guidance, to help you find documentary evidence or others who will speak on the record. Sometimes, this isn't possible - and all you have is their word. In such situations, I would be prepared to use their uncorroborated account if, and only if, various criteria were satisfied.

Firstly, I would want to be sure of their identity, and I'd need to know for certain that they held a position which allowed them access to the information they were offering. If, say, a hospital consultant phones me to tell me about a scandal, I want to be damn sure the person on the other end of the phone really is who they say they are. If necessary, I'll meet them in person and demand to see photographic ID and proof of their employment.

Without corroboration, I always make it clear that the 'facts' of my story are derived from a single source, no matter how authoritative, and pepper my copy with terms like "believed", "understood", "said to be", etc to convey a sense of caution. I'll also offer the aggrieved party the opportunity to dispute the claims. On occasion, faced with an unavoidably accurate leak, press officers have little choice but to acknowledge the truth.

As an aside, I would never, ever file an otherwise libellous story whose evidential basis was founded solely on an anonymous source*. Even if I knew who they were, dragging them to court to testify on my behalf would be a non-starter. They would probably just deny having ever spoken to me, and I'd be unable to prove otherwise.

* unless it's a public body, which have no standing to sue for defamation