Why are sources unnamed by journalists?

Well, a decade into my career, I can safely say I have understood the rationale behind this. And I’d like to help you make sense of this widely used practice in journalism. 

In the age of misinformation and social media callouts, a news piece citing an “unnamed” or “anonymous” source evokes curiosity, even suspicion. Almost as if it is a fabrication. However, for journalists, it’s a matter of great professional responsibility. 

An “unnamed source” is someone whose identity is known to the reporter (and at times, their editor) but whose name is withheld from the story for a number of reasons. The person could be a company insider, a government official, a lawyer close to a deal or someone within a particular community/organization relevant to the story. 

The information they provide is often critical but the source’s personal, professional or legal risks mean that going on record is not possible for them. Most unnamed sources are simply protecting their livelihoods, and sometimes their lives. In many cases, telling the truth can carry dire consequences: job loss, lawsuits, social ostracism or even threats to personal safety.

Harveen Ahluwalia, co-founder and editor, Middle East, at The Morning Context, says, “These sources fear losing their jobs, being blacklisted, or facing legal action. Sometimes, even former employees request anonymity to avoid retaliation or bad reference checks from past employers.” 

Anonymous sources are commonly used across the world. In India, for instance, recent investigations such as the Adani-Hindenburg coverage or the Pegasus spyware revelations relied on unnamed officials and insiders. But the most iconic example is the Watergate scandal. In the 1970s, The Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the story of the Richard Nixon administration’s involvement in the Watergate break-in. Their key source? A man known only as “Deep Throat”, who was later revealed to be Mark Felt, the associate director of the FBI at the time. His identity remained secret for over 30 years, and yet the information he provided led to congressional investigations, media scrutiny and, ultimately, the resignation of a US president.

What matters the most here is not the absence of a name but the presence of important, credible information that has been verified and carries editorial accountability. Now, the most important question.

How do we report using anonymous sources? 

Prince Thomas, managing editor at The Morning Context, says credibility is of utmost importance. “We take great care to ensure that anonymous sourcing is credible,” he says. “A lot depends on our reporters as they’re the ones building relationships with sources over time. You can’t just meet someone for the first time, get a piece of critical information, and take it at face value. That’s not how we work.”

He adds, “If a story hinges on a single anonymous source we’re not familiar with, we don’t run with it unless it’s been independently verified by at least one other source known to and trusted by us.”

This practice holds especially true for sensitive stories, such as those involving workplace misconduct or abuse. Harveen explains: “We never rely on a single voice. People's experiences can be emotional or subjective. That’s why we speak to multiple people who are disconnected from each other. If several unconnected people flag the same pattern, that’s when the credibility builds.”

There are also editorial questions we ask before using any unnamed quote. Harveen breaks this down aptly: “There are three main checks. First, how does the person know this information? Second, is it independent from what others are saying? Third, is there an agenda at play? We try to understand why someone is sharing what they’re sharing.”

Which brings us to our next important point.

Our editorial approach to ‘anonymity’

At The Morning Context, we try to be transparent about the anonymity itself. If we cite an unnamed source, we also describe who they are and why their identity is being withheld.

“You’ll notice that when we mention an anonymous source, we also try to indicate the profile of that source and explain why anonymity is being granted,” says Prince. “It could be that the person is currently employed at the company and is not authorized to speak to the media, or fears retaliation if their identity is revealed.”

He continues: “We include details such as whether the source is a junior or senior executive, a consultant, someone from the same company or a rival firm, or a former employee. We also mention the reason for anonymity. Whether it was requested, or necessitated by the sensitivity of the information. We've made it a point to include these details at the editing stage, even if the writer has missed them.”

This also helps a reader form their own judgement. “I absolutely understand and welcome the doubts readers may have about anonymous sources,” says Prince. “As a reader, unless you know where the information is coming from, how do you take it at face value, especially if you're an investor and the story concerns a company you’re invested in?” 

But the larger question is, should you trust stories with unnamed sources?

That depends on the newsroom’s credibility, the transparency around the quote and whether you’re given enough context to make an informed judgment. At a time where everything from documents to videos can be manipulated, journalists don’t just report facts. They also protect the people brave enough to speak to them. 

So, the next time you come across a line that says, “a person who wished to stay anonymous said…”, understand that what you’re reading might be the result of weeks of trust-building, cross-verification and editorial scrutiny.

Using unnamed sources is not a shortcut; it is a lifeline for both the story and the source.

Lead image from Unsplash.