Use of unnamed sources and secrecy of appointing Cabinet

Following up on my piece last Friday, What you need to know about the secrets of unnamed sources, Clement Amolo asks: “Who really told Nation reporters that President Uhuru Kenyatta would reshuffle his Cabinet and bring in new faces before Christmas?”

And he can ask that question with a good reason: No Cabinet has been reshuffled.

Although he did not say so, Mr Amolo was referring to the story published on December 4, 2017, Jubilee works to push Cabinet list as Nasa vows to stay away, by Samwel Owino and Ibrahim Oruko.

The story carries this paragraph, among others, based on unnamed sources: “A source well versed with the goings-on in the Executive told the Nation on Sunday that the President will forward the names either on Wednesday or Thursday, when the House is set to break for the Christmas holidays.”

NEW CABINET

Other unnamed sources used in the story include “sources within the presidency said”,  “a senior Jubilee official,” “analysts,” “the Sunday Nation has learnt,” “it is understood that” and “sources who spoke in confidence”.

In all, the Nation has published about a dozen stories, totalling more than 10,000 words, on the appointment of the new Cabinet. The headlines have ranged from The secrecy around Cabinet secretaries nominations and What Uhuru must consider in naming new Cabinet to Major changes in the offing as Uhuru crafts new Cabinet and Rest easy, new Cabinet line-up may take longer than expected.

Cabinet appointments remain a secret until they are done. Any reporting before then necessarily has to rely mostly on unnamed sources that would naturally not want to be named.

Mr Amolo claims that, in this particular story, the reporters were “the unnamed sources” reporting their own thoughts. He said: “In fact, the reporters expected [the nominations] soon after the inauguration. It’s obvious they were the ‘unnamed sources’ reporting what they anticipated.”

FAKE NEWS

He adds that sometimes the real problem with unnamed sources is that they don’t exist.

“Even before the official advent of the fake news era, there were plenty of fake news around. I’ve read newspapers for years, so I know journalists sometimes cook up stories and serve them hot but in the name of ‘sources who cannot be named because they are not authorised to comment on this issue due to its sensitivity’.”

Mr Amolo concludes by stating that it is hard to believe anyone revealing a sensitive story but saying that his or her names should not be disclosed.

A reporter carries a big responsibility for the privilege of using an unnamed source. He, not the unnamed source, is accountable to the reader. He must tell his readers why he is not naming his source, why he thinks the source is reliable.

REVEAL SOURCES

If he fulfils that responsibility and tells us that he talked to a source that did not want to be named, we should believe him — unless he has a history of lying or it looks improbable from the story that the source exists.

At any rate, editors are supposed to require that reporters reveal to them the sources to ascertain their existence before they can approve the use of the story.

It would, of course, still be possible for a determined reporter to lie about his unnamed sources. One possible lie is to claim to have talked to “multiple sources” when only one or two people are quoted in the story. Another is to bestow credibility on the unnamed source that is vague, exaggerated, non-existent or questionable.

For example, “a source well versed with the goings-on in the Executive”, used in the story questioned by Mr Amolo, is not specific enough. Is the source a farmer in Ichaweri village in Gatundu, State House Spokesman Manoah Esipisu or a Kenya version of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks?

In general, however, we should have faith in our reporters that they will do the right thing. When they do not, the blame lies squarely on the editor.

* * *

‘Notebook’ will take a break until January 19, 2017.

Send your complaints to [email protected]. Text or call 0721 989 264.