WORKING WITH SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Why is source selection a problem? One of the reasons is that quite a lot of people would willingly give information to a journalist, but they do not have the proper powers and competencies, and therefore the information received from them cannot be considered reliable. A journalist, first of all, answers such questions: which organization (department, department, committee, office) actually deals with questions that interest the correspondent? how is it organized? Who are the key figures (leaders)? Who can give comprehensive and accurate information?

The best “cheat sheet” for identifying competent and authorized persons is telephone and other reference books for internal use, from which you can find not only the surnames, names, patronymic names of functionaries, but also the names of departments, departments, and services. Some journalists have a unique dossier on the workers of the organizations with which they have to deal, keep in touch with them even when it is not necessary for the case, monitor their promotion, learn about their successors in time when they are transferred to another place of work. All in order to "preserved" at the time of the source at the appropriate time could be used immediately.

By the way, to confirm the data obtained, having a reliable informant is not enough. When a material appears on a newspaper page or on the air, it is required to provide it with one more attribute of authenticity: a mandatory reference to the source. The absence of such usually indicates a lack of professionalism of the reporter. In other cases, when information is given without reference to its origin, or we are confronted with nonprofessional motives of a journalist (editorial staff, channel, studio), which often occurs during “information wars” and election campaigns, or to ensure confidentiality of the source .

Of course, the best option is when informers do not object to the publication of their names. Instead of “it is known that ...” the correspondent has the opportunity to say directly, who knows, instead of “they say that ...”, to say the name of the person who says, instead of using the turnover “it is expected that ...” , and in exchange for the words “as they said to me ...”, indicate the one who said.

We have to take into account that the interlocutors of a journalist are afraid of “repression” by their superiors, are anxious about their careers, do not want public publicity, are embarrassed. Article 41 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media” obliges us to keep secret the source of information and not to name the person who provided information with the condition of non-disclosure of his name. If it was not possible to persuade the interlocutor to name him in the publication, then he should act only according to the law.

Quite often a journalist is warned: “This is not for print. I told you so that you know the big picture, but you don’t need to talk about it. ” What to do in such cases? Practice discovers several approaches. “Hard”: the correspondent appears to be convinced that the interlocutor identified him as a journalist, after that he uses the received information at his own discretion (“He knows who he is talking to - let him choose expressions”). “Soft”: the correspondent persuades the interlocutor to leave information in the material that the latter would not want to distribute (“without this, the material will lose its sharpness”, “your point of view will be poorly reasoned”, “they will think about you that you are cunning”, etc. .). If a person succumbs to persuasion - fine. If not and the journalist has promised not to publish “inconvenient” information for the source, then it should be done in accordance with the law.

Links are different, starting with a specific “as I was told by a name” and ending with a traditional traffic “according to information received from persons trustworthy.” In the latter case, when the editorial staff and the journalist encounter troubles, it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of their sources.

A separate approach requires rumors as a source of information (rumor, news, usually not yet confirmed, by definition, explanatory dictionaries). Journalists are willing to use information of this kind, having secured themselves with the necessary procedures. Namely:

Ø It is useful to find the source of hearing;

Ø to ask the source whether it was or is in fact;

Ø in case of refusal to confirm a rumor - look for another source that can give confirmation;

Ø upon successful search and confirmation received, agree that if after the publication of the material the editorial staff is sued, the source will appear in court and confirm the information presented.

In any other situation, the editorial staff and the journalist assume all possible responsibility. Sometimes rumors become a pretext for investigative journalism and eventually cease to be so.

And what about anonymous sources? One of the existing rules says to avoid using them. According to another view, information from an unknown informant can be used if at least one more source confirms it. In this case, the use of an unnamed source should be briefly explained in the material.

However, the most common sources of information for journalists are government officials. According to the Commission on Freedom of Access to Information (Russian Human Rights Foundation), about 80% of journalists systematically seek information from representatives of various branches of government, mainly the executive. The peculiarity of working with the governing bodies lies in the fact that there are intermediaries between the media and the heads of the federal, regional and local levels - press secretaries and press services. They organize briefings, press conferences and meetings with the management for interviews, respond to inquiries, accredit correspondents, invite them to private events, prepare information in the form of press releases, references, reports. It is impossible not to take into account that the information thus obtained is often one-sided, since the tasks of the press services do not coincide with the press responsibilities: in the first case - to make the image of leadership in public opinion positive, in the second - to inform the audience about real facts. Such relations of press services with the media are everywhere and, with some minor differences, are characteristic of all organizations, including public ones. Therefore, experienced journalists acquire their own informants, who are “in the depths”, within the government, administration, department - to verify the information received, to obtain an exclusive or closed data.

Some official institutions are receiving increased media attention, and it is useful for a reporter to know about the organization of work with the press in them.

Difficult objects of journalistic interest are the bodies of internal affairs, and depending on the hierarchical level, they differ somewhat among themselves. In particular, in the regional police department journalists will probably have to be accredited to receive information.

Thus, the Regulation on accreditation in the separation of information and public relations of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of the Sverdlovsk Region to media representatives provides for the following rights for accredited journalists: to attend briefings, press conferences of the Main Internal Affairs Directorate; receive press releases and other information materials from the press service; make records using various means, except as required by law; check the accuracy of information, receive the necessary information, advice; attend meetings, meetings and other events held by the Main Internal Affairs Directorate, with the exception of closed ones. In addition, accredited journalists have the right to receive information of interest to them without written requests, including from officials in all departments subordinate to the regional police department. In some departments, however, there is an unwritten law prohibiting the ordinary militia, to be interviewed by the traffic police without agreement with their superiors. Virtually all information passes through the press service, which has to “make contact” in order not to fall into disfavor, which leads to weaning from the source of information. Maintaining personal connections is far from useless to inform journalists.

It is somewhat more difficult to work with the Federal Security Service. Accreditation is not provided for in all structures. All information passes through the press (public) relations group and in most cases is provided upon request. Much depends on the degree of trust in this media and a particular journalist. Under current internal orders, operational staff can communicate with correspondents only through the press service and by decision of the management.

Prosecutors in collaboration with journalists based on the order of the Prosecutor General (1993), which the responsibility to cooperate with the media was assigned to senior assistant prosecutors. They sort and dispense information offered to the press in accordance with the laws and regulations under which this law enforcement structure operates. According to the observations of journalists, it happens that the prosecutor's office is trying to impose his opinion on the journalist - as a rule, this is the position of the prosecution in a particular legal conflict. It is advisable to find a counterweight in the form of a defender. The principle of "listen to the opposite side" should work here. The objectivity of the materials will only benefit from this.

Courts. The relationship of the third branch of government with the “fourth” is regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. They define the limits of informing journalists about cases in progress, set limits on the amount of information intended for the press, stipulate the conditions under which a journalist is allowed and not allowed to attend court sessions. Information can be obtained not only from the judge, but also from the press secretary of the court, the specifics of whose work is practically no different from similar work in other organizations.

As a rule, it is not required to endorse materials from representatives of all three branches of government. According to the Law “On Mass Media”, preliminary approval of the content of messages and materials is not allowed (unless the official is the author or interviewee). Many journalists, however, give sources of information to read the material in its entirety or read fragments in order to clarify quotes, figures, and other factual information, and thus insure themselves against mistakes.

However, if the authorities, enterprises and organizations with state ownership still, despite the known difficulties, are more or less open (access to them is guaranteed by legal acts), then enterprises and organizations with private ownership are almost tightly closed for journalists. Communications, personal capabilities of reporters and editors, a favorable set of circumstances, and professional experience help out. Once at a seminar where this problem was discussed, one of the participants offered a solution: “We must find an offended shareholder and ask him about it.” Another remarked: “It would be easy to recall the well-forgotten old - workers 'and peasants' correspondents, freelance writers - and return to this practice. Generally speaking, the solution lies in the inventive work of management and journalists.

Selecting a source and getting access to it, gathering the necessary information, the journalist checks the information received. Moreover, the test should be carried out at any convenient time, not sparing time for this. A conscientious journalist differs in that in order to clarify information, he will make five calls more than his overly careless colleague.

There are several tried and tested ways to verify actual information:

Ø when the material is ready, you should call the source back and, relying on the text, double-check the figures, facts, other data, speak clearly and articulately important statements and ask: “did I reproduce your judgment correctly?”;

Ø If possible, compare the obtained information with the video and audio records and text documents available on it;

Ø interview additional witnesses and eyewitnesses;

Ø show the text to the experts;

Ø read the material to experienced editors;

Ø Give the text to the editorial attorney.

All these simple actions will save the journalist from possible mistakes and subsequent troubles.