Secret sources
Should
journalists protect the identity of whistleblowers and insiders no
matter what the costs?
If anything clear emerged from the Hutton inquiry
and the tragic death of Dr Kelly, it was the potentially serious consequences
of revealing the identity of a secret source. The actions of the unfortunate
Andrew Gilligan have been the subject of much debate, but he is not
the first journalist to clash with the government over such a source.
The issue has long and difficult history.
In 1963, Daily Sketch journalists Reg Foster and Brendan Mulholland
served three months in prison for failing to reveal a source to a
government tribunal investigating the Vassall spy case. The editor
of his paper backed his principled stand, arguing that, “sources
of information must remain inviolate. This is the basic tenet of every
good journalist…If newspapers revealed their sources, no one
would dare hint at any abuse of government or point the way to any
disclosure which might embarrass Whitehall.”
He had a good point. Secret sources are the grease that keeps the
presses turning. Without them, journalists would be little more than
purveyors of rumour and gossip. It is essential that inside sources
- who can face grave consequences if exposed - are willing to speak
to us. This would not happen if they believed their identity would
be revealed.
Not all branches of society share this view. Reporters often come
under great pressure to give names, or hand over information, to serve
justice or the public interest. Given that journalists are supposedly
serving the public interest, we must surely acknowledge that there
is some basis to this argument. If we were perceived as arrogantly
putting ourselves “above the law,” public faith in us,
and ultimately our work, would suffer.
There are some examples of journalists choosing public interest over
secrecy. Sunday Times journalist Nick Martin Clark broke a promise
of confidentiality to give evidence against Clifford McKeown, who
admitted murdering a Catholic man in an interview. Martin Clark argued
that upholding personal values sometimes requires, “over riding
the principle of extending confidentiality to sources.”
However, we also need to recognise that public interest arguments
sometimes disguise self-serving political motivations. The government
is not above using information to punish whistle-blowers or bully
journalists into silence. In the case of Nick Martin Clark, the government
abused his cooperation, demanding that he turn over documents entirely
unrelated to the case. As a result, he was kicked out of the National
Union of Journalists and went into hiding after others he may have
incriminated threatened his life.
The majority of Reg Foster’s stories on the Vassall spy case
were trivial. According to Professor Roy Greenslade, Prime Minister
McMillan’s real purpose in forcing reporters to reveal their
sources was to “head off newspapers from their enquiries”
into links between Vassal and other politicians. Decades later, Alastair
Campbell’s quest to unmask Dr Kelly came not from a search for
truth or justice, but from a desire to “fuck Gilligan.”
One of the NUJ’s reasons for ex-communicating Martin Clark was
that breaking confidentiality could endanger journalists. Jonathan
Randal, former Washington Post correspondent, used the same argument
when the Hague war crimes tribunal subpoenaed him to testify against
a Bosnian-Serb politician charged with genocide.
Randal refused, saying, “wars are becoming more dangerous for
correspondents and forcing them to testify would only increase these
dangers.” He said combatants, “either won’t talk
to us at all, or they’ll kill us.” Ultimately, the court
agreed, saying that there was “an important public interest”
in the work of war reporters and that forcing them to testify would
affect their ability to work safely and effectively.
Yet there are also risks involved for journalists who do not reveal
sources. Their lives may not be in danger, but they can find their
careers in jeopardy and face costly legal battles.
In 1983, Ministry of Defence worker Sarah Tisdall leaked government
documents to The Guardian showing Michael Heseltine’s attempts
to dodge parliamentary questions about US cruise missiles arriving
at Greenham Common. When the paper published the story, the government
began a long legal battle to get back the documents to punish the
source of the leak. Guardian editor Peter Preston found himself, “stuck
with the thought that fines would be heaped on the paper day after
day…or that basically I would just have to push off, resign.”
Even an experienced and highly respected journalist
like Preston found the pressure difficult to bear. “Everything
was like nutcrackers,” he said, “it closed over the months.”
Preston ultimately returned the papers to the government and Sarah
Tisdall served four months in prison. “I made a mess of it,”
he said. “I was old enough and wise enough to have done better.”
Even after Lord Hutton's harsh criticism of Andrew Gilligan and the
BBC , it is unlikely that journalists’
reasons for protecting confidential sources will change. The simple
truth is that they are an intrinsic part of everything we do. However,
we may learn greater awareness of the enormous pressure and risk that
defending the anonymity of a source can bring, ultimately leading
to choices that few would be happy to face. As Peter Preston said
from bitter experience, “None of this stuff is easy and that’s
the basic point.”
