The following is an excerpt from an October/November 2005 article in the American Journalism Review by managing editor Rachel Smolkin. The article is entitled "Uncharted Terrain" and can be found here.  

In early August (2005), after consulting with attorneys at Cox Newspapers, Washington Bureau Chief Andy Alexander crafted a set of frequently asked questions and answers to guide news staffers at the company's papers.

The FAQ document recommends that reporters have very specific, upfront discussions with sources who request anonymity, even sources reporters have dealt with in the past. Does the reporter have the source's permission to share his identity with an editor? Under what conditions would the source release the reporter from confidentiality? "Is your promise of confidentiality eternal?" the document asks. "Is it unconditional, meaning that you must go to jail rather than reveal the source? If your source signs a prosecutor's waiver, is that sufficient to release you from your pledge?"

"I think a lot of common sense has to prevail here," Alexander says. "If you are dealing with someone who gives you information on background and it's relatively benign information and very unlikely to result in legal action, you probably wouldn't need to have as detailed a discussion. But if it's information that just came from a grand jury proceeding, you definitely need to have that discussion."

The guidelines encourage reporters to take steps to minimize potential exposure on sensitive stories, such as using code names in notes instead of sources' real names, or calling a source from a pay phone or meeting with her in person to avoid a phone log trail that could be subpoenaed.

The guidelines also suggest one alternative to writing everything down: "You want to be thorough and accurate in the reporting process, but you're under no obligation to leave a paper trial. In extreme cases involving highly sensitive information, you might avoid notes altogether and keep the information in your head."

For example, Alexander says, if "somebody said the bribe came from Congressman X, and that's all you're going to get out of them, and you're going to use that to go further, you might want to consider keeping that in your head."

The document states that reporters should assume their entire work product – from notebooks to e-mails to tape recordings to photos – is the newspaper's property and that any other work produced on company computers, including books, blogs or freelance assignments, also could be subject to a subpoena.

Cox's attorneys explored technological solutions to protecting source materials – including creating a system in which e-mails would expire after a certain period of time – but foresaw too many complications with such strategies. "They were not certain that we could protect ourselves or that it could be done electronically or legally," Alexander says...

 [top]