Protecting sources

A guy called me the other day asking me to give him contact information for someone I had quoted in a recent story. I don't give out phone numbers for my sources. I offered to pass a message to my source, but the caller refused to identify himself. We ended up having a heated exchange. He didn't understand why I wouldn't "trust" him with the number. I didn't understand why he'd imagine I should give it to him.

For a journalist, not much is more important than having sources who trust you -- to quote them accurately, to write a balanced story, and to protect them. We depend on sources for everything from giving us a simple quote to fill out a story, to helping us interpret complex information, to calling us with a tip when something isn't right. If sources don't trust you, the flow of information dries up, and you can't do your job.

"Protecting" a source can mean different things. I've worked with a few anonymous sources over the years. In some cases, they were OK with me revealing their identity to my top editor. In others, I took care to identify them only with an "X" in my notes, so that their names wouldn't be revealed even if my notebooks were successfully subpoenaed. In extreme cases on the Mainland, reporters have gone to jail rather than reveal the name of a confidential source. Committing to protect a source's identity is a big responsibility -- one a smart reporter shouldn't take lightly.

Next to that, refusing to give my sources' phone numbers to strangers seems like a basic courtesy I owe the people who make it possible for me to do my job.