Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: June 16, 2003
Latest Update: June 16, 2003
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Citation of Unidentified Sources

Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, May 2003.
"Fair use" encouraged.

The correct citation of sources is required in academic or authoritative writing, in order to guarantee that the sources were, in fact, consulted, and that the ideas are appropriately attributed. These issues came up recently in the New York Times scandal with Jason Blair's failure to acknowledge those from whom he took information, and his failure to actually consult sources he should have.

But all sorts of difficulties arise in citation. One example is illustrated in an article of the Associated Press in the New York Times on Monday, June 16, 2003: "Saudis Say Raid Prevented an ImminentTerror Attack," at p. A 10. Backup. The following attribution starts in the second paragraph of the article:

"At least five people were arrested in the raid, . . . a Saudi Interior Ministry official said.

The unidentified official, whose remarks were carried by the official Saudi Press Agency and state television, said that after the raid a number of other suspects were arrested in Mecca, . . . . He did not elaborate.

. . . Saudi security agents broke into an apartment in the Khalidiya district . . . the official said. He did not say what the intended target was and gave no details of the alleged plot.

Although your reader might have trouble ascertaining whom to question in the Saudi Press Agency, you have at least given her a reasonable place to start, and assured her that you have no more direct information. Attentions to details such as this mean that we can, within limits, begin to separate rumor from factual occcurence. This is what editors mean when they assign staff to "check the facts." Facts are not invariant objects that we can hold on to and verify; interpretation and bias are bound to alter our perceptions. But we can check sources and verify that the sources identified were, in fact, involved, and attribute the facts we report accurately within the limitation of interpretation.

What do I mean when I say that the facts are susceptible to interpretation? Well consider that if our source were the suspects themselves, and the organization they represent, the story might be very different. As it is, our source is the Saudi Press Agency, which tells us that the facts will be interpreted in accordance with the official Saudi position. We already take that into account when we ask ourselves where this information is coming from. Nevertheless, we do need to check ascertainable facts, at least from the perspective of those who are reporting them. Not to do so is to let rumors create chaos.

Why do you suppose that in paragraph 6, "terrorists" is in quotes?

'Five suspects were killed in a gun battle initiated by the 'terrorists,' he said. Two police officers were killed and five wounded, and four bystanders were slightly wounded, the official said.'

I would suggest that the assignment of the label, terrorists, is clearly interpretive, and that the writer is alerting you to the fact that the report comes exclusively from the group who would so label these suspect. The group of suspects, if we had their perspective, might disagree with the term "terrorist."

The use of what we call "sanitary quotation marks," as in "terrorists," and the careful attribution of the actual source, are all tools for giving us the opportunity to draw our own conclusions. That is the end to which journalism pretends. Without such attempts at accuracy, the news becomes a fairy tale, as with the Minister of Information in Iraq, who continued to assure the Iraqis that they were winning right up until allied tanks entered Baghdad.