5 attribution rules that every reporter should follow

Attribution is a key element of news writing. It can be defined as stating or identifying the information source.

It helps your reader, listener or viewer learn where the information has come from. Is it from an interview or from a press release issued by an organisation? Has it been sourced from a speech or from a judgement? Has it been obtained from another newspaper or a news bulletin?

Your audience can then judge how reliable is the news report.

There are five broad rules that you should follow when attributing information to a source.

# Rule 1
Use attribution in as many stories as possible: The best way to build the reader trust is to identify the source. The identification should be complete, and should include the name and designation of the individual. The attribution can also be limited to the designation of the person authorized by an organisation to speak to the media.  In such cases, the name need not be given. It is enough to attribute the report to the “BJP spokesman” or the “Delhi Metro spokesperson”.

It is important to establish the competence of the subject to comment on a story. For instance, if you are covering a disaster story, you can use the views given by “eyewitness” or “survivor”;  if it is a medical negligence story you can use the opinion of doctors or medical administrators who are competent to comment on the subject.

# Rule 2
Use attributive verbs carefully: The best way to attribute a statement is to say “The subject said”. The verb “said” is neutral. It does not imply any meaning.

However, you cannot use the verb said for every attribution in the story. Your writing becomes repetitive and monotonous. You have the option to use alternatives such as “stated” or “referred to” or “according to”.

However, you have to be careful when using attributive verbs like “suggested”, “urged”, “asked”, “disclosed”, “cautioned”, “warned”, “claimed” etc. Each of these attributive verbs has its own meaning, and gives a definite slant to what the speaker said. You must use them only when you are convinced that the speaker “warned” his opponents or “cautioned” his opponents to be careful.

# Rule 3
Sifting fact from opinion: As a reporter, you meet scores of people every day. Each one tries to pass off their grievances, likes, dislikes as facts to you. You have to be careful how you attribute such statements in your report.

This is where attributive verbs like “according to” come in useful. They communicate the meaning that the quoted statement is the opinion of an individual, and not a fact.

The reader can then decide how much weightage should be given to such opinion.

However, you should not report statements that are defamatory, even if you attribute them to an individual. You also become liable to defamation because your newspaper has distributed the defamatory statement.

# Rule 4
When not to attribute: There are times when your source does not want to be identified. In such cases, do not blow the cover of your source especially if the disclosure may harm the source.

However, you must double check your facts to ensure that your source is not taking you for a ride by palming off a mischievous story. You may even delay the publication of the story till you are absolutely convinced that the information is accurate.

In such stories, you can refer to your source as “reliable source”, “informed source” or “source close to the government” .  You can even use generalizations like “it is widely believed that” or “it is understood that”. However, when you do so you are stretching the trust of your readers. They may believe or reject your story.

# Rule 5
Off the record stories: These are the most difficult to report. There are some sources who smartly drop a bombshell after the interview is over with the request that it should be treated as “off the record”.

So, what do you do? Should you ignore it? Or should you use it because the person who has provided the explosive information is a person in authority?

The best rule to follow is to share the off the record comments with your Editor, Chief of Bureau or Chief Reporter.  Get their point of view as to how important is the information. Is it important enough to take the risk of publishing it without naming the source? You also need to review the reliability of such a source.

Publish it as an “informed source” story only if the consensus is that it is in larger public interest.