Sources

Full text

SOURCES
Florian Wintterlin
Published in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Journalism
1
Journalistic sources are defined as actors who journalists get information from using news-
gathering techniques such as interviews and observations. These information can include quotes,
background information, story suggestions, or eyewitness accounts (Gans, 1979). Sources are
therefore actors outside the news organization itself who provide information subsidies and can
be actors who are interviewed by e-mail, in person or by telephone, as well as documents
containing relevant information. Apart from journalists’ own observations, sources can be
differentiated into types, which some authors classify in a source hierarchy based on the
perceived trustworthiness from the perspective of the journalist. The most trustworthy sources
are official sources such as ministries and other government institutions, followed by
professional sources, which include, for example, non-governmental organizations or companies
from the economic sector. The third type is non-professional sources such as citizens who are not
in the public eye for professional reasons. A fourth type, actors from the media system itself such
as correspondents and news agencies, can be added. This classification is based on the proximity
to journalistic standards that sources usually exhibit when presenting their information. Official
and especially journalistic sources are used to adapting their communication style to the needs of
journalists. Non-professional sources such as private citizens, on the other hand, usually do not
take journalistic demands into account when posting experience reports on social media
1
Wintterlin, F. (2022). Sources. In G. A. Borchard (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Journalism (pp.
1519–1521). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544391199.n380

platforms.
In journalism research, as early as 1979, Gans postulated that it was sources that lead journalists
to the topics of reporting, and Reich (2009) called them the cornerstones of journalistic activities
such as the detecting, researching and verifying of news. They provide journalists with
information and thus the raw material on which further reporting is based. As a rule, it is sources,
not journalists, who witness events that are potentially worth reporting (Sigal, 1986). In
academic definitions of journalism, sources also play a prominent role: McQuail (2013) defines
journalism as construction and publication of contemporary events based on reliable sources.
Journalists need sources especially when facts are not verifiable or controversial and can be used
to manifest the facts and lend authority to information (Tuchman, 1978).
Sources in the news process
Despite their ascribed importance, in journalism research, sources were somewhat
underrepresented for a long time. The theory of news values, research on gatekeepers and on
instrumental exercise as well as social psychological approaches conceptualize news decisions
from the perspective of journalists without placing sources at the center of the consideration.
Activities of journalists in relation to sources are often summarized under the terms of news
gathering or sourcing. Also theories of news production localize sources mainly at the beginning
of the process as suppliers of information, which are consulted by journalists (McManus, 1994).
As a result of the sociological turn in journalism research, journalists were then
increasingly viewed in an organizational context and the idea of an autonomously acting
gatekeeper who selects sources was rejected. With this change of perspective, the sources of

information inevitably move more into the focus of interest. Although, the actual relationship to
sources is only present in an approach that places sources in the context of social interactions
(e.g. Schlesinger, 1987). In reciprocal models, the relationship between sources and journalists is
described as a process of exchange and ongoing social relationship, in which the gathering of
information is not a single event but the result of complex interactions between the two actors
(Blumler & Gurevitch, 1981). This process of "finding the truth" is described as epistemology of
news reporting, which is defined by rules and routines that operate within a social setting, and
determines how journalists obtain their knowledge (Ekström, 2002). Knowledge is not
understood as the product of an objective and rational analysis of reality, but as the result of an
intersubjective negotiation process. Zelizer (1993) refers to the place where meanings are
constructed, shared and redefined as the interpretive community of journalism. According to this
approach, the relationship between journalists and their sources can be described as a negotiation
of meaning between multiple groups, each of which is located in different interpretative
communities with their own patterns of interpretation.
Ethical and legal aspects of sourcing
In this negotiation, journalists have the obligation to protect their sources. Source
protection is a central component of numerous codes of ethics, according to which it is always
wrong not to protect the source. This ethical responsibility towards journalistic sources is,
however, also legally anchored in some countries in the form of so-called "shield laws". In
Sweden, for example, journalists can be prosecuted for disclosing their sources. However, source
protection as a legally protected good is the exception rather than the rule, nonetheless,
journalists face potential sanctions if they do not protect their sources. Without certain protective

mechanisms, potential sources could be deterred from passing on important information to
journalists, who would then no longer be able to adequately perform their task as the "fourth
estate". The protection of sources gains special importance in the case of whistleblowers where
investigative reporters and sources collaborate to reveal abuses of e.g. power. For journalists, this
kind or reporting poses new challenges such as the establishment of secure communication
channels and considerations about surveillance of their own activities. The publishing of leaks is
considered as a new type of journalism, which places the journalist in the context of activism.
Power in journalist-source relations
In the description of the relationship between sources and journalists, a substantial part of
the literature focused on which voices get heard in the news. In many cases, this research is
framed under the label of power and examines dependency in the relationship between sources
and journalists. The power relations between reporters and their sources depend on various
contextual factors: the story itself, the source, and social, cultural, political and economic
contexts. Thus, the reporter-source relationship can range from a goal-oriented exchange of
information to a struggle for the sovereignty of interpretation in the presentation of information.
The level of dependency on sources can be differentiated according to the stages of news
production. In the news discovery phase, the agenda-building theory assumes that issues arise in
an interplay between media, politics and society (McCombs, 2004). Particularly in routine
reporting, journalists are guided by planned events such as press conferences or press releases
and news agencies and tend to remain passive. In the news selection phase, not only the
perceived relevance of an issue contributes to the decision to select it for coverage, but also the
availability of sources and the accessibility of information (Berkowitz, 1991). Sources who

adjust their information to journalistic needs are therefore privileged in news reporting. In the
news gathering phase, sources gain in importance because journalists try to identify additional
perspectives and cross-check previous information. In the presentation phase, Tuchman (1972)
described strategic rituals journalists use to preserve objectivity. Sources play a major role in
these rituals. For example, they enable journalists to distance themselves from the information
displayed in the journalistic piece.
Empirical research on the relation between sources and journalists often referred to the
tango-metaphor asking who exerts greater influence in shaping the news. Gans (1979) stated that
sources usually lead the tango. More recent studies found power relations to be dependent on
context factors such as cultural differences, the kind of story journalists cover, and working
conditions of journalists. However, most studies agree that authoritative sources such as
government officials or academic experts dominate the news. Citizens are mainly present as
eyewitnesses in crisis events, breaking news situations, or to represent the public opinion in vox-
pops (Lecheler & Kruikemeier, 2016). In routine coverage, citizens only play a minor role.
Digitalization and journalistic sources
The rise of digital media significantly changed the relationship between sources and
journalists with regard to different aspects.
First, sources no longer depend on journalism to spread their messages to the audience.
For example populist politicians heavily use these new possibilities to communicate directly.
This has also consequences for power in the relationship between sources and journalists because
sources can bypass the filter and journalistic coverage is not the only channel to reach a broader
audience.

Second, the ability of journalists to access content generated by users dramatically
increased. The availability of user-generated content as potential raw material and the presence
of diverse voices online lead scholars to assume that also journalistic coverage would include
more non-elite sources (Franklin & Carlson, 2010). However, this optimism was not fulfilled as
user-generated content often not fulfills journalistic standards, which increases the hurdle to be
integrated in news coverage. Some studies noted an increase in social media in the news, but also
stated that this material is mainly used to illustrate opinions of a range of sources. Other studies
found that journalists seldomly base stories on online sources and rather use them as a
supplement. Overall, the impression prevails that journalists, at least in routine reporting, use
digital tools only as a new access route to established sources.
Third, social media not only offer unlimited access to raw material but also poses the
challenge of how to determine the trustworthiness of sources and the credibility of their material.
Techniques such as geo-location of pictures or forensic processes to identify fake videos are
incorporated in newsrooms or offered as a service by external organizations. Additionally, not
only the direct use of social media material is problematic with regard to verification, but also
using social media as a tool for story detection in the sense of ambient journalism involves risks
for journalists. Large-scale disinformation campaigns could bias the public opinion journalists
perceive when monitoring social media.
Verification of journalistic sources
Kovach and Rosenstiel describe journalism as a "discipline of verification" (2001, p. 97),
which has developed norms such as objectivity, rules ("Be first, but first be right") and routines
in the collection, selection and presentation of valid information. Journalists need to determine if

a source tries to be accurate and honest, or if s/he only offers self-serving information.
Verification is essential for the ability of journalism to provide fair and accurate reporting. The
drive for accuracy is a core value of journalism and defines acceptable professional behavior in
the sourcing and presentation of information.
In the context of digital media, journalism must develop strategies to deal with the speed
and abundance of material on social media platforms. The conflict between accuracy of
information and speed of reporting is particularly present in the online context. Breaking-news
situations are the point of culmination when the flow of information is usually chaotic and
contradictory, and journalists' verification efforts are also visible to recipients. According to the
findings of some studies, verification is neglected in these crisis situations and verification is
only carried out after publication. The standards for assessing the trustworthiness of sources from
the perspective of journalists have apparently changed as a result of social media. Since
verification is a very time-consuming and resource-intensive process, several authors have
identified alternative ways in which journalists can arm themselves against attacks on their
objectivity without having to investigate every last detail of information (e.g. Mancini, 1993;
Tuchman, 1972).
In science, journalistic verification has not yet achieved the status it deserves. Studies
usually evaluate the correctness of communicated information and less frequently the process by
which journalists ensure this correctness. Studies dealing with the process of verification come to
the conclusion that in many cases, journalists rely of trust relationships to sources to shorten the
process of verification. Others try to investigate the steps journalists follow when verifying
sources (e.g. Brandtzaeg, Lüders, Spangenberg, Rath-Wiggins, & Følstad, 2015).

The audience perspective on journalistic sources
Sources do fulfill different functions for journalists in the phase of news discovery and
gathering but also in the phase of news presentation. Journalists use sources to fulfill the norm of
objectivity, which requires the presentation of supporting evidences and conflicting possibilities.
Especially in cases where the information reported is not verifiable or controversial, journalists
need sources to manifest the facts (Reich, 2009). How transparent journalists are with regard to
their sourcing practices differs – which also effects the audience.
How the audience views journalistic sources is not at the center of journalism research
and received less attention compared to journalistic sourcing. Nonetheless, journalists handling
of sources is crucial for the audience’s evaluation of the quality of journalism. In general, the
recipients seems to value quotes, the mentioning of sources, their proximity to the news event,
and a high status of the source. On the other hand, some types of sources such as public relations
are rated as untrustworthy in general. If sources provide uncertain information, which are
nonetheless newsworthy, journalists have to solve the dilemma providing the audience with
enough information to judge the source and at the same time avoiding the impression that the
whole journalistic piece is untrustworthy. In this case, transparency about sources can evoke
uncertainty on the side of the audience. However, if the audience themselves verify information
from journalistic pieces rather depends on factors such as the congruency with predispositions.
With regard to online sources, empirical evidence is mixed suggesting that the audience
do not perceive the use of offline sources as more credible than online sources. Only very eye-
catching displays of e.g. screenshots of tweets might negatively influence the credibility.
Additionally, the need for transparency seems to differ between online and offline recipients.
People who regularly use online news expect journalists to disclose more details about sources

than offline users do.
See also anonymous sources; trust in journalism; new media; gatekeeping; forth estate; fake
news
Further Readings
Berkowitz, D. A. (1991). Assessing forces in the selection of local television news.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35(2), 245–251.
Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1981). Politicians and the press. In D. D. Nimmo & K.
R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 467–493). Beverly Hills,
California: SAGE Publications.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Lüders, M., Spangenberg, J., Rath-Wiggins, L., & Følstad, A. (2015).
Emerging journalistic verification practices concerning social media. Journalism Practice, 10(3),
323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2015.1020331
Ekström, M. (2002). Epistemologies of TV journalism. Journalism: Theory, Practice &
Criticism, 3(3), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/146488490200300301
Franklin, B., & Carlson, M. (2010). Journalists, sources, and credibility: new
perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what’s news: a study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly
news, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern Univ Pr.
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The elements of journalism. What newspeople
should know and the public should expect. New York: Crown Publishers.
Lecheler, S., & Kruikemeier, S. (2016). Re-evaluating journalistic routines in a digital
age: A review of research on the use of online sources. New Media & Society, 18(1), 156–171.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815600412
Mancini, P. (1993). Between trust and suspicion: How political journalists solve the
dilemma. European Journal of Communication, 8(1), 33–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323193008001002
McCombs, M. E. (2004). Setting the agenda: the mass media and public opinion. Polity.
McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: let the citizen beware? Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
McQuail, D. (2013). Journalism and society. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.
Reich, Z. (2009). Sourcing the news: key issues in journalism – an innovative study of
the Israeli press. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Schlesinger, P. (1987). Putting “reality” together: BBC News. London: Constable &
Robinson Ltd.
Sigal, L. V. (1986). Sources make the news. In R. Manoff & M. Schudson (Eds.),
Reading the news (pp. 9–37). New York: Pantheon Books.
Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s
notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660–679.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: a study in the construction of reality. Michigan: Free
Press.
Zelizer, B. (1993). Has communication explained journalism? Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01307.x