When 'off the record' is the public interest
It gets tricky it when sources go "Off the Record". It's something Campbell Cooney had to deal with in the past week, so he feels it's worth explaining.

How you identify people when you're reporting news, is one of the most controversial questions you have to face.

You speak to the person, be they a public figure like a politician or anyone else, on tape or in front of the camera. They are on the record, they know it, you know it, and your audience knows it.

Where it gets tricky it when sources go "Off the Record". It's something I've had to deal with in the past week, so I felt it's worth explaining a little about how I managed the issue.

Firstly the meaning of "Off the Record". In general terms it's reliable information someone's given you, but which you can't identify as the source.

In January the European Union found the 2006 coup in Fiji, and the actions of the military, including the alledged abuse of human rights, meant Fiji had breached the agreement, under which the EU supplied aid, in particular, around 30 million dollars US in Sugar Industry subsidies. Since then the interim government has attended many meetings with the EU to explain why it should still receive payments.

In May the EU gave in principal support to continuing the subsidies, but made it clear it wanted an election within three years.

Fiji has given in principal support to elections before end of 2009. But since then its political leaders have made statements which fly in the face of that committment.

As well there are still reports of the abuse of human rights. Earlier this week the media in Fiji reported the EU had released a statement saying it won't be providing subsidies in 2007, as the interim government has not shown it's serious about democracy. Later a press release was issued by the British High Commision, on behalf of the EU Presidency, saying no statement had been released, and nearly five and a half million US dollars in funding for the Sugar Research Institute and the Cane Growers Council will be made.

But some of those media reports, had quoted an EU Report, not a statement. I contacted a number of my sources in Fiji. They confirmed a report exists, and it says there will be no subsidy payments for 2007. I was told the report goes to the EU Council meeting in September, and it was the decision they would be adopting.

This information didn't contradict the EU or British High Comm, as the payments it referred to are not the subsidies. I decided to use the information I'd received, quoting my source, but not identifying them. My reasons are: I know the source, and have found them honest and reliable in the past; I wasn't using secondhand information; And to identify them would put them at risk, not just from employers, but since the coup the media in Fiji and many in public life have alledgedly had their rights abused for speaking out, and I didn't want to be responsible for more people ending up at Queens Elizabeth Barracks in Suva.

Since my stories has gone to air Radio Australia's received at least one complaint from a Fiji listener, concerned we'd used a "Unnamed Source", and if it was correct, curious why we didn't wait till the story was made public by official sources.

They're good points.

Firstly, as I've said we had no choice but to leave the source unnamed, and we wouldn't have used it, or run the story, if we did not consider that source reliable.

As for waiting for the story to be made public by officials - well, we're in the news business, and we make no apologies for being first, as long as we're happy we've done all we can to ensure a story's correct.

And if you're wondering who the complaint was from, it was a listener, living in Fiji and concerned about the future of the country she calls home. It didn't come from the interim government, the European Union, the Military, or anyone you'd think would have a stake in a story which affects their future.

< back