The Editor's Briefing | The National

A journalist is only as good as their sources. Sources, of course, are varied; they include individuals, data sets and on-the-ground reporting. One key element of journalism is the trust audiences place in us to use accurate and solid sourcing.

Often officials will want to discuss developments with journalists “on background”, meaning the information can be shared but their identity cannot. However, reporters must use anonymous sources diligently. We at The National sometimes do use anonymous sources, usually to protect them, but only when we have verified the information or the source is an official speaking on background. It is a practice sometimes used by American and European officials, often to protect their own careers.

Of course, it is not unheard of that some people in government, or outside it, will use anonymity to share information that is misleading. It is up to the journalist to verify and question such information.

Through the years, I have seen such attempts, but they were a rare occurrence. In the past two months, however, the frequency has shot up. The amount of reporting I have seen in other outlets claiming exclusives and scoops based on anonymous sources is unlike any other time. Worryingly, some of these stories are tackling military developments in the region that can lead to actual war and cost lives. Strangely, several of these stories have appeared in American media, quoting "sources" without even saying which country they are from and making audacious claims about military movements.

On the other hand, Arab governments rarely go out and deny a report. Often, officials tell me: “If we deny every wrong report, we would need an entire team.”

There is also sometimes a benefit to plausible deniability. However, as the rate of false reporting picks up, with media outlets keen to claim exclusives even if they are wrong, denials are finally being issued. Just today, Saudi Arabia issued a statement saying “beware of media reports attributed to unnamed sources”, while it avoided naming the story in question.

The privilege to report comes with a great responsibility, especially when working for a well-known outlet. The credibility carried by a trusted outlet should, of course, extend to its journalists, but that is no longer a given, especially as reporters sometimes use social media to publish their own stories.

The fog of war is very real at the moment, adding to the confusion of contradictory statements from Iran, the US and beyond. As we navigate these uncertain times, you can at least be certain that here at The National we will only use the sources we trust and can always defend.