Please forward any comments or suggestions for the Web site to the
CAJ webmaster.
Last updated:
May, 2004
Canadian Association of Journalists
Statement of Principles for Investigative Journalism
Preamble
Our privilege and duty as investigative journalists is to
defend free speech, inform self-governing citizens, encourage deliberation on
public policy and serve the public interest.
These duties sometimes require that journalists reveal
criminal activity, investigate abuses of power, expose wrong-doing, protecting
the public’s health and safety and support the open administration of justice
and government.
Investigative journalism employs special methods that raise
ethical and legal issues. The stories of investigative journalism have serious
consequences for individuals, organizations and society. Investigative
journalism, therefore, has distinct responsibilities.
Truthfulness
Our primary duty is to seek and report the truth as
completely and independently as possible. We will make every effort to ensure
the accuracy of our reports.
We will act as an independent voice for the public at large.
We will not be intimidated by power or influenced by special interests,
advertisers or news sources. We will not allow the independence of our
journalism to be compromised by conflicts of interest.
We will use
confidential sources who are in a
position to know and whose evidence is verified by other independent sources.
We will be wary of sources who may be motivated by malice or bias.
Transparency
We will be transparent in our actions, especially where our
stories are controversial, have far-reaching impact, or require special
techniques.
Special investigative methods will be used only if:
- The
information is important for the public
- There
is no other way to obtain the information
- Any
harm to individuals or organizations is out-weighed by the benefits of
making the information public
- We
are able to plan the investigation carefully
Accountability
We will be accountable
for our actions. We will explain to the public the nature
and reasons for our investigations. We will explain why we used confidential sources, or hidden recording
devices, or why we misrepresented ourselves.
We will respond promptly and openly to complaints from the
public. We will be ready to explain how a story was investigated and what
editorial standards were used. We will correct quickly any errors in our
stories.
Fairness
We will
give individuals or organizations that are publicly criticized an opportunity
to respond. We will make a genuine and exhaustive effort to contact them. Where
possible, we will give them an opportunity to respond before the story is
published or broadcast.
Privacy
Canadians have a right to privacy, yet they also have a
right to know about their public institutions and the people who are elected or
hired to serve its interests. They have a right to know the social impact of private
organizations and corporations. We will not infringe upon someone’s privacy
unless it is in the public interest. Where privacy is infringed, we will seek
to minimize any harm done to people, especially the vulnerable, the traumatized
and the young. Each situation should be
judged in the light of common sense, humanity and the public’s right to know.
Canadian Association of Journalists
Guidelines for Investigative Journalism
Editorial
Control and Approval
Wide consultation is strongly recommended when undertaking
unusual or controversial newsgathering activities. Consultation with legal
counsel and prior authorization of a senior editor or manager is required when using
surreptitious methods of gathering information.
Policies on editing and the rights of program participants
may require senior editorial approval in order that journalists can hold
themselves to the highest standards of professional performance.
In some cases, a final review and approval of the
investigative issues within the report may be required prior to publication or
broadcast.
Independence
Investigative
reporters who uncover sensitive information can attract the interest of police,
the justice system, government officials, organizations and institutions who wish
to obtain the material for their own use.
We
must always protest attempts by police and other members of the justice system to involve us in their investigations.
Our first responsibility is to the public. The public should not perceive
journalists to be agents of the police. When that happens we undermine our
credibility and stifle the flow of future information from sensitive sources.
The appearance of being affiliated with the police could threaten our safety.
Where
journalists become aware of impending public risk, we are beholden as citizens
to warn authorities of what we have uncovered. But in the vast majority of
circumstances, we serve the public interest by maintaining strict independence
from police, the justice system and government institutions.
Accuracy
and Verification
Inaccuracies
or missing information in stories undermines journalistic credibility. It
raises questions about the overall truth and fairness of the information, and
our stories.
The
basic facts of a story can be verified often through sources, officials and
documents. We should make every effort to pursue all of these avenues.
We will remain vigilant or disciplined when using
information from the web and e-mail. E-mail and other web postings pose particular problems for journalists because
they frequently allow sources to remain anonymous or to assume a false
identity. It is easy to manufacture
an e-mail address from a government department or corporate headquarters.
Conducting interviews by e-mail is acceptable if you
have independently verified the interviewee’s identity. Quotes from an e-mail
interview should be identified as such. We will not promise confidentiality to a
source via e-mail unless we have verified their identity.
Extreme
caution should be used in using alleged facts or quotes from anyone participating
in e-mail mailing lists, chat rooms and discussion groups. We will always try
to contact the participant directly.
We
should verify any information, facts or documents posted on the web or internet
-- preferably with a phone call to the source. Even information from a reliable
site -- such as a reputable news organization or government ministry -- should
be checked. Extreme caution should be used when using information from lesser
known or new web sites.
There
may be cases where it is deemed necessary to use web information that we cannot
verify independently. In such cases, we will inform our readers or audiences about
the nature and reliability of the news source.
The
general watchword for journalistic work on the web is: “Don't believe and don't
deceive.”
Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation
by a journalist is justified only in cases where illegal or fraudulent activity
is strongly
suspected to have taken place, the public trust is abused or
public safety is at risk. Documentary evidence of problems may not exist and
officials may fail to respond to inquiries. Sources may not exist, or refuse to
speak for fear of retribution. For example, when investigating controversial
activities (i.e., illegal purchases over the web, or the dissemination of hate
speech), we may find it necessary to cloak our identity.
Undercover
research should be conducted with a strong moral compass, with sensitivity to
those being investigated and with openness to readers and audiences.
We
should avoid duplicity or misrepresentation when conducting web-based research.
For example, there should be no excuse to join a breast cancer discussion group
or an AIDS mailing list and pretend you are anything but what you are: an
inquiring journalist.
Technology
and Techniques
We will employ clandestine recording methods, such as the
use of hidden cameras or microphones, only after due consideration is given to
issues of legality, fairness and invasion of privacy.
Careful consideration will be given to employing individuals
other than journalists in recording material clandestinely. The authenticity of
recordings from non-journalistic sources should be verified and clearly
identified.
Re-enactments, Reconstructions and Dramatizations
Re-enactments, reconstructions and dramatizations can be
used as effective tools in the full and accurate reporting of a significant
story, but they should reflect the event they portray as closely as possible.
Broadcast journalists should avoid manipulating sounds or
images in any way that misleads or distorts reality or has the effect of
producing editorial comment.
Rigorous judgement should be employed when considering the
use of special effects; which may include the use of sound and music, graphics,
camera angles, lighting,
fast- and slow-motion, and any other editing techniques.
As a general rule, dramatizations and actuality should not
be mixed because the audience must have the ability to judge the nature of the
information.
We will identify clearly the judicious use of simulations to
the audience in both script and on-air.
Use of confidential and anonymous sources
A. When is it appropriate to use them:
We should strive to fully identify the sources in our
stories – for credibility and accountability. When sources are secret, the
reader or audience has less information on which to judge the reliability of
the source’s comments. Also, anonymity might encourage the source to make irresponsible
statements.
However, confidential sources can be a vital tool in the
free flow of information. There can be clear and pressing reasons to protect
anonymity. In print media, we may conceal the identity of interview subjects by
changing their names or by not naming the source. In broadcast, we may protect
identities through digital or other technical methods, such as concealing an interviewee’s face or distorting
their voice.
We should use such methods only when the participation of
the subject puts them at risk of harm or personal hardship (i.e., a
whistleblower who might lose his/her job, or a mole within organized crime.)
B. How they should be identified:
We will explain the need for anonymity to our readers and
audiences. Confidential sources should be identified as accurately as possible
by affiliation or status. (For example, a “senior military source” must be both
senior and in the military.)
We will identify a source from a critical or opposing side
of a controversy as such. Any vested interest or potential bias on the part of
a source must be revealed.
C. How they should be
checked:
Use of anonymous sources requires the prior approval of at
least one senior editorial person (or manager) who knows the full identity of
the source. This ensures editorial control, verification and honesty. The disclosure
of sources among journalists within a news organization is not the same as the public
disclosure of sources.
We must know the full identity of the anonymous source (e.g.,
full name, phone number, method of contact, history and background). “Anonymous”
does not mean we know little about the person. It means we know everything, and
are offering an agreed-upon level of protection.
More than one source should be used to verify a story or fact.
If only one source is available, we must say so.
We will not allow anonymous sources to take cheap shots at
individuals or organizations. We will independently corroborate facts, if we
get them from a source we do not name.
D. How they should be protected:
Promising sources that we will keep their identities
confidential is not enough. We must spell out, precisely, two things:
- what
the level of confidentiality is
- how
far you are willing to go to protect the source
There are three levels of confidentiality:
Not for attribution:
We may quote statements directly but the source may not be named, although a
general description of his or her position may be given (“a government
official,” or “a party insider”). In TV and radio, the identity may be shielded
by changing the voice or appearance.
On background: We
may use the thrust of statements and generally describe the source, but we may
not use direct quotes.
Off the record: We
may not report the information, which can be used solely to help our own
understanding or perspective. There is not much point in knowing something if
it can't be reported, so this undertaking should be used sparingly, if at all.
We will make it clear from the start how far we are willing
to go in protecting a source.
We may be ordered by a court or judicial inquiry to divulge
confidential sources upon threat of jail. If you are willing to go to jail to
protect a source, say so. Otherwise, spell out the conditions. To protect your
credibility or your company’s finances, you may tell the source you will have
to reveal their identity in order to win a damaging lawsuit.
Make it clear that if a source lies or misleads you, all
agreements are off.
We should not make any commitments to anonymous sources without
consultation with senior management. Journalists should be wary about entering into
arrangements that they cannot fulfill. Sometimes
sources request additional protection. For example, they may ask for legal
assistance or protection if they are revealed or endangered. If you and your
employer agree this is reasonable, spell out the terms.
When promising confidentiality we should bear in mind that Canadian
journalists are not protected by “shield laws,” as in the United
States
Statement of Principles for Investigative Journalism
Preamble
Our privilege and duty as investigative journalists is to
defend free speech, inform self-governing citizens, encourage deliberation on
public policy and serve the public interest.
These duties sometimes require that journalists reveal
criminal activity, investigate abuses of power, expose wrong-doing, protecting
the public’s health and safety and support the open administration of justice
and government.
Investigative journalism employs special methods that raise
ethical and legal issues. The stories of investigative journalism have serious
consequences for individuals, organizations and society. Investigative
journalism, therefore, has distinct responsibilities.
Truthfulness
Our primary duty is to seek and report the truth as
completely and independently as possible. We will make every effort to ensure
the accuracy of our reports.
We will act as an independent voice for the public at large.
We will not be intimidated by power or influenced by special interests,
advertisers or news sources. We will not allow the independence of our
journalism to be compromised by conflicts of interest.
We will use
confidential sources who are in a
position to know and whose evidence is verified by other independent sources.
We will be wary of sources who may be motivated by malice or bias.
Transparency
We will be transparent in our actions, especially where our
stories are controversial, have far-reaching impact, or require special
techniques.
Special investigative methods will be used only if:
- The information is important for the public
- There is no other way to obtain the information
- Any
harm to individuals or organizations is out-weighed by the benefits of
making the information public
- We
are able to plan the investigation carefully
Accountability
We will be accountable for our actions. We will explain to the public the nature and reasons for our investigations. We will explain why we used confidential sources, or hidden recording devices, or why we misrepresented ourselves.
We will respond promptly and openly to complaints from the
public. We will be ready to explain how a story was investigated and what
editorial standards were used. We will correct quickly any errors in our
stories.
Fairness
We will
give individuals or organizations that are publicly criticized an opportunity
to respond. We will make a genuine and exhaustive effort to contact them. Where
possible, we will give them an opportunity to respond before the story is
published or broadcast.
Privacy
Canadians have a right to privacy, yet they also have a right to know about their public institutions and the people who are elected or hired to serve its interests. They have a right to know the social impact of private organizations and corporations. We will not infringe upon someone’s privacy unless it is in the public interest. Where privacy is infringed, we will seek to minimize any harm done to people, especially the vulnerable, the traumatized and the young. Each situation should be judged in the light of common sense, humanity and the public’s right to know.
Canadian Association of Journalists
Guidelines for Investigative Journalism
Editorial
Control and Approval
Wide consultation is strongly recommended when undertaking
unusual or controversial newsgathering activities. Consultation with legal
counsel and prior authorization of a senior editor or manager is required when using
surreptitious methods of gathering information.
Policies on editing and the rights of program participants
may require senior editorial approval in order that journalists can hold
themselves to the highest standards of professional performance.
In some cases, a final review and approval of the
investigative issues within the report may be required prior to publication or
broadcast.
Independence
Investigative
reporters who uncover sensitive information can attract the interest of police,
the justice system, government officials, organizations and institutions who wish
to obtain the material for their own use.
We
must always protest attempts by police and other members of the justice system to involve us in their investigations.
Our first responsibility is to the public. The public should not perceive
journalists to be agents of the police. When that happens we undermine our
credibility and stifle the flow of future information from sensitive sources.
The appearance of being affiliated with the police could threaten our safety.
Where
journalists become aware of impending public risk, we are beholden as citizens
to warn authorities of what we have uncovered. But in the vast majority of
circumstances, we serve the public interest by maintaining strict independence
from police, the justice system and government institutions.
Accuracy
and Verification
Inaccuracies
or missing information in stories undermines journalistic credibility. It
raises questions about the overall truth and fairness of the information, and
our stories.
The
basic facts of a story can be verified often through sources, officials and
documents. We should make every effort to pursue all of these avenues.
We will remain vigilant or disciplined when using
information from the web and e-mail. E-mail and other web postings pose particular problems for journalists because
they frequently allow sources to remain anonymous or to assume a false
identity. It is easy to manufacture
an e-mail address from a government department or corporate headquarters.
Conducting interviews by e-mail is acceptable if you
have independently verified the interviewee’s identity. Quotes from an e-mail
interview should be identified as such. We will not promise confidentiality to a
source via e-mail unless we have verified their identity.
Extreme
caution should be used in using alleged facts or quotes from anyone participating
in e-mail mailing lists, chat rooms and discussion groups. We will always try
to contact the participant directly.
We
should verify any information, facts or documents posted on the web or internet
-- preferably with a phone call to the source. Even information from a reliable
site -- such as a reputable news organization or government ministry -- should
be checked. Extreme caution should be used when using information from lesser
known or new web sites.
There
may be cases where it is deemed necessary to use web information that we cannot
verify independently. In such cases, we will inform our readers or audiences about
the nature and reliability of the news source.
The
general watchword for journalistic work on the web is: “Don't believe and don't
deceive.”
Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation
by a journalist is justified only in cases where illegal or fraudulent activity
is strongly
suspected to have taken place, the public trust is abused or
public safety is at risk. Documentary evidence of problems may not exist and
officials may fail to respond to inquiries. Sources may not exist, or refuse to
speak for fear of retribution. For example, when investigating controversial
activities (i.e., illegal purchases over the web, or the dissemination of hate
speech), we may find it necessary to cloak our identity.
Undercover
research should be conducted with a strong moral compass, with sensitivity to
those being investigated and with openness to readers and audiences.
We
should avoid duplicity or misrepresentation when conducting web-based research.
For example, there should be no excuse to join a breast cancer discussion group
or an AIDS mailing list and pretend you are anything but what you are: an
inquiring journalist.
Technology
and Techniques
We will employ clandestine recording methods, such as the
use of hidden cameras or microphones, only after due consideration is given to
issues of legality, fairness and invasion of privacy.
Careful consideration will be given to employing individuals
other than journalists in recording material clandestinely. The authenticity of
recordings from non-journalistic sources should be verified and clearly
identified.
Re-enactments, Reconstructions and Dramatizations
Re-enactments, reconstructions and dramatizations can be
used as effective tools in the full and accurate reporting of a significant
story, but they should reflect the event they portray as closely as possible.
Broadcast journalists should avoid manipulating sounds or
images in any way that misleads or distorts reality or has the effect of
producing editorial comment.
Rigorous judgement should be employed when considering the
use of special effects; which may include the use of sound and music, graphics,
camera angles, lighting,
fast- and slow-motion, and any other editing techniques.
As a general rule, dramatizations and actuality should not
be mixed because the audience must have the ability to judge the nature of the
information.
We will identify clearly the judicious use of simulations to
the audience in both script and on-air.
Use of confidential and anonymous sources
A. When is it appropriate to use them:
We should strive to fully identify the sources in our
stories – for credibility and accountability. When sources are secret, the
reader or audience has less information on which to judge the reliability of
the source’s comments. Also, anonymity might encourage the source to make irresponsible
statements.
However, confidential sources can be a vital tool in the
free flow of information. There can be clear and pressing reasons to protect
anonymity. In print media, we may conceal the identity of interview subjects by
changing their names or by not naming the source. In broadcast, we may protect
identities through digital or other technical methods, such as concealing an interviewee’s face or distorting
their voice.
We should use such methods only when the participation of
the subject puts them at risk of harm or personal hardship (i.e., a
whistleblower who might lose his/her job, or a mole within organized crime.)
B. How they should be identified:
We will explain the need for anonymity to our readers and
audiences. Confidential sources should be identified as accurately as possible
by affiliation or status. (For example, a “senior military source” must be both
senior and in the military.)
We will identify a source from a critical or opposing side
of a controversy as such. Any vested interest or potential bias on the part of
a source must be revealed.
C. How they should be
checked:
Use of anonymous sources requires the prior approval of at
least one senior editorial person (or manager) who knows the full identity of
the source. This ensures editorial control, verification and honesty. The disclosure
of sources among journalists within a news organization is not the same as the public
disclosure of sources.
We must know the full identity of the anonymous source (e.g.,
full name, phone number, method of contact, history and background). “Anonymous”
does not mean we know little about the person. It means we know everything, and
are offering an agreed-upon level of protection.
More than one source should be used to verify a story or fact.
If only one source is available, we must say so.
We will not allow anonymous sources to take cheap shots at
individuals or organizations. We will independently corroborate facts, if we
get them from a source we do not name.
D. How they should be protected:
Promising sources that we will keep their identities
confidential is not enough. We must spell out, precisely, two things:
- what
the level of confidentiality is
- how
far you are willing to go to protect the source
There are three levels of confidentiality:
Not for attribution:
We may quote statements directly but the source may not be named, although a
general description of his or her position may be given (“a government
official,” or “a party insider”). In TV and radio, the identity may be shielded
by changing the voice or appearance.
On background: We
may use the thrust of statements and generally describe the source, but we may
not use direct quotes.
Off the record: We
may not report the information, which can be used solely to help our own
understanding or perspective. There is not much point in knowing something if
it can't be reported, so this undertaking should be used sparingly, if at all.
We will make it clear from the start how far we are willing
to go in protecting a source.
We may be ordered by a court or judicial inquiry to divulge
confidential sources upon threat of jail. If you are willing to go to jail to
protect a source, say so. Otherwise, spell out the conditions. To protect your
credibility or your company’s finances, you may tell the source you will have
to reveal their identity in order to win a damaging lawsuit.
Make it clear that if a source lies or misleads you, all
agreements are off.
We should not make any commitments to anonymous sources without
consultation with senior management. Journalists should be wary about entering into
arrangements that they cannot fulfill. Sometimes
sources request additional protection. For example, they may ask for legal
assistance or protection if they are revealed or endangered. If you and your
employer agree this is reasonable, spell out the terms.
When promising confidentiality we should bear in mind that Canadian
journalists are not protected by “shield laws,” as in the United
States
Guidelines for Investigative Journalism