For Your Society

share this with the people

Understanding The Times: How The Times Uses Anonymous Sources

In an effort to shed more light on how we work, The Times is running a series of short posts explaining some of our journalistic practices. Read more of this series here.

Here, our standards editor, Philip B. Corbett, explains why we sometimes allow sources to go unnamed.

The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles. Under our guidelines, anonymous sources should be used only for information that we think is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.

We realize many readers are skeptical about the credibility and motivation of unnamed sources; some even question whether the sources exist. We have rules and procedures to try to address those concerns.

Besides the reporter, at least one editor must know the identity of the source. Use of anonymous sources in any story must be approved by a high-ranking editor, usually a department head like the International editor or the Washington bureau chief, or their deputies. When the anonymous sourcing is central to the story, it generally must be approved by an even higher-ranking editor like a deputy managing editor.

We understand readers’ wariness, but many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be reported if we banned anonymous sourcing. Sources often fear for their jobs or business relationships — sometimes even for their safety.

Some readers suggest that sources are more likely to be honest if their names are published, and more likely to lie if granted anonymity. But reporters in many areas know that the opposite can be true. On the record, people in sensitive positions will often simply mouth the official line; they will be candid only if they know their name won’t be used.

Of course, we have to be skeptical. There is a real risk of being spun and manipulated. Reporters and editors ask themselves: How does the source know this information? What’s the motivation for telling us? Has she or he proved reliable in the past? Are there ways to corroborate the information? Often we explain some of this background in the story, while still taking care to protect the source’s identity.

Follow the Reader Center on Twitter: @ReaderCenter.

A note to readers who are not subscribers: This article from the Reader Center does not count toward your monthly free article limit.


Facts are under attack! Support Real Journalism.

  • Respect (0%)
  • Funny (0%)
  • Disappointment (0%)
  • Anger (0%)
  • Stress (0%)
  • Whatever (0%)

For Your Society is a media organization that brings you curated news from trusted and reputable sources. We encourage you to support these publications and their journalists by subscribing to their services. Our intent is to stand up for facts, and to present them in an appealing and condensed way that doesn’t waste your whole day. We bring you news that focuses on politics, American culture, foreign policy and the world, science and more.

We also produce podcasts focusing on facets of American society. Premiering soon will be a new series called Whiskey and Immigrants, in which we sit down with real immigrants to hear their stories. Shortly after that we will debut a podcast unlike any other, called Unite or Die. We’re keeping the details of that one under wraps, but we think it will truly benefit society.

We try not to be too annoying with ads or pop-ups, so we mostly rely on your purchases from the FY Society Store and donations through Patreon to sustain our non-profit operations, please consider doing what you can.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Close Menu