The circumstances prevailing at the time the information was conveyed. The on the record nature of the exchange may not have been sufficiently clear from the outset. Circumstances may be that the source has been drinking or has recently woken from sleep, is reeling from serious news just conveyed, or is otherwise vulnerable or incapacitated.
The nature of the information. For example, in the course of an on the record exchange the source may convey sensitive information that has low public interest value but may unreasonably affect others if disclosed with attribution. For example it may infringe the privacy of a member of the source’s family and neither the information nor its disclosure may be material to the story.
Whether the disclosure of the information unattributed would serve a sufficiently important public interest.
Whether disclosure of the information unattributed would amount only to a personal attack made on another person by the source under cover of anonymity provided by you.
Whether the information can be obtained from an attributable source of comparable reliability for disclosure to occur within a time period that would allow the public interest to be adequately served.
A form of attribution which, while preserving anonymity, would give the audience an opportunity to weigh the reliability of the information, at least to some extent. Phrases like ‘sources said’ are unhelpful. The following advice adapts the New York Times’ guidance on this point to the Australian context:‘Australian diplomat’ is better than ‘Western diplomat’, which is better than ‘diplomat’. Still better is ‘an Australian diplomat who took part in the meeting’. The phrase ‘a person familiar with the case’ is vague enough to include the reporter. Better are ‘an executive from the plaintiff company’ and ‘a staff member who has read the draft’.
Anonymity for the source requires an investment of trust in you by the audience (and your colleagues) as well as by the source. Do not say ‘sources’, plural, if there is only one source. Do not give false forms of attribution in order to throw people off the scent of the real source: for example, ‘a parliamentary source’ when actually the source works in a department of executive government. Such actions can undermine the story as a whole and may affect the subsequent willingness of others to invest trust.
legal proceedings in which you and/or the ABC are lawfully compelled to provide information; or
the establishment of a process under law, such as a royal commission or parliamentary inquiry, with the capacity to address the issue that the source was trying to bring to light through the media; or
an investigation under law by an authority, such as a statutory anticorruption body, with the capacity to protect the source from adverse effects of being identified as the source.
avoid exposing the source when cross-checking the information the source supplied;
minimise and keep secure any notes, email exchanges, phone records, drafts and other material which may expose the source’s identity;
consider whether any retained notes can be written in ways that do not identify sources;
be aware of the risks to the source arising from original documents, photocopies, disks, USB data storage devices and other items supplied by the source;
be aware that some taxi-payment records show GPS-derived location data about pick-up and drop-off addresses;
be aware that date/time-stamped CCTV footage in offices may be aligned with dated/timed phone records to indicate who was using a particular phone at the time of a particular call;
if using vision of the source in the report that is broadcast, blur rather than pixelate (which can be reversed);
for voiceovers of the source, use another person’s voice rather than distort by technological means the actual source’s voice;
consider the potential for details other than face or voice to identify a source – for example, clothing, landmarks, street names, vehicle registration number; and
it is mandatory to refer upwards to the Division’s Director;
consult Legal;
consider whether a release from some or all of the commitment can be negotiated with the source in light of circumstances that have developed since the original commitment was made;
gather and verify the facts needed to make the decision;
identify the competing values;
analyse the impact of the various options and how to minimise foreseeable harm.
understands the gravity of each such decision;
has prepared itself for dealing with such cases responsibly; and
accepts for itself the public accountability that the ABC’s staff routinely require of others. Further guidance