It happens in journalism as with weeds among crops: when bad practices are not cut out at the root, they contaminate everything. In a newspaper, the weed is the imprecision in the origin of information. This occurs when, due to an excess of zeal in protecting their sources, the editor uses filler phrases that, despite contributing nothing, pass the supervision filter.
Read more Applied Ethics for AI Natives
As in this apparent explanation in a news story last Thursday about how the editor learned of the meeting between the president of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, and María Corina Machado: “[They will meet] half an hour before the Venezuelan opposition leader addresses those gathered in Puerta del Sol, as EL PAÍS has learned.” The Style Guide cites this last phrase as a model of what “cannot replace a reference to a source.” On the website, it was corrected as follows: “According to Ayuso’s team.”
Rules. The manual requires journalists to cite a source whenever they have not been at the scene of the events they narrate, whether it is an eyewitness or a document explaining the facts. The general rule is that the reporter must “strive to avoid anonymous sources and cite the names of those who spoke with him.” But in some areas, such as politics, courts, or businesses, it is a rarity because informants demand as a condition to remain in the shadows.
Anonymity. Carlos E. Cué, political correspondent for EL PAÍS, explains it in the radical change that spheres of power have experienced. “Hyper-leadership and the disappearance of counter-powers in politics have meant that very few risk making public statements,” he explains.
In parties, he recalls, organized internal criticism and territorial rebalances have disappeared: “In Vox we have seen how critics have been expelled and, if not, parties have a more subtle way, which is to remove them from electoral lists.” This absence of checks and balances has extended the obsession with security against possible leaks. Cué describes how many politicians have periodic automatic deletion of WhatsApp messages activated.
Another influencing factor is parliamentary fragmentation, which has turned government partners into an additional scrutinizer of what the press reports. “If I write ‘government sources’ in a news story, it can be used against us in a negotiation,” explains Cué, who emphasizes that the obsession with the narrative has become part of political pacts, which include details of how agreements are announced, who issues the first statement, or where the focus is placed. “How things are told has become a first-order political act,” he points out. “That’s why now, to escape the controlled narrative, sometimes we can only work with anonymous sources.”
Formulas. For these cases, the manual states that the reader should receive some kind of guidance: “When names cannot be cited, it is advisable to avoid generic expressions” such as “according to consulted sources,” “reliable,” or “credible.” The best option is to use those that approximate the origin of the information as much as possible, such as “judicial sources” or “government sources.” Above all, those who only provide opinions should never appear as if they were informants.
“Knowledgeable sources.” In news about companies, it is common to attribute information simply to “knowledgeable sources,” even though no one would consult someone unfamiliar with the matter at hand. In the coverage of the change of presidency at the company Indra, articles overuse this expression: “Moncloa had to settle for proposing a non-executive presidency to ensure that the appointment went ahead, indicate knowledgeable sources.” The Deputy Director of Economy, Ricardo de Querol, admits that it would have been better to cite “business sources.”
This command also perceives an increasingly strict control by large companies over the information they make public. “Providing internal information or documents to a journalist outside authorized channels can even be sanctioned with dismissal,” he explains. “Listed companies are also subject to the regulation of the National Securities Market Commission, which often asks them for explanations after news is reported by the media.”
Querol reminds that the journalist’s obligation is to overcome obstacles, but also, he emphasizes, to respect professional secrecy. “Yes, we must be precise in these approaches, without betraying the trust of sources who do not want to be identified,” he states. “For this reason, we frequently refer to sources ‘close to the negotiation,’ ‘aware of the operation,’ ‘from the market,’ and other similar formulas. The reader can trust that they are reliable, and that we have verified the information in the most careful way.”
Opacity. In the judicial sphere, explains Reyes Rincón, court reporter, most news stories originate from official documents. In that regard, she adds, the situation has improved in the last decade because almost all judicial bodies now have press offices that facilitate access to written documents. It is more difficult to obtain public statements, because judges, prosecutors, and lawyers have a duty of confidentiality and can be convicted for breaching it, as happened to the former Attorney General. “It is reasonable for sources to request anonymity, because when they tell you about a court’s deliberation, they are revealing secrets,” she explains. “But sometimes it is abused and demanded when it would not be necessary.”
Rincón believes that “the conviction of the Attorney General has done a lot of damage to judicial journalism,” because opacity has spread, precisely when there are more facilities for hoaxes and judicial bodies could combat them with information.
Conclusion. This is a sensitive debate with many nuances. The difficulties explained by these journalists are not a lament for the obstacles of the profession, but a social portrait, showing the deterioration of democratic quality in some institutions. The mechanisms of power that prevent transparency in companies, political parties, and courts through internal pressures directly attack the right to information. Overcoming these obstacles is a journalist’s duty, and in that task, they must not expose those who dare to evade the control of their organizations. But blurring confidential sources until they disappear is a lack of professionalism. And that also harms the right to information, which belongs not to journalists, but to citizens.
To contact the ombudswoman, you can write an email to defensora@elpais.es or send a WhatsApp audio message of up to one minute to the number +34 649 362 138 (this phone does not answer calls).
Read more Iran prevails in the propaganda battle against Trump