Attribution basically answers the question: According to whom? It identifies the source for material that does not come from a reporter's direct observation and is not widely available background information.

The standard for attribution is that sources are identified by their full name, and their competence to provide the information or their relationship to the events in the story is explained. But if this would compromise a source, then as much of this information as possible is provided without giving away the person's identity.

Back to top

Simple or established facts can be stated without citing a source.

Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.

It is the same for more complicated facts.

Ferdinand Marcos' rule as president of the Philippines ended in 1986 after millions of people took to the streets to prevent troops loyal to Marcos from attacking rebel troops.

Indonesia sent troops into East Timor in 1975 and made the former Portuguese colony a province in 1976.

Make sure the facts are accurate.

Which means that you verify them through investigation or that you know them to be true based on past experience or investigation.

And make sure the facts are facts.

It is certain that Marcos left after the "people power" event, but it would be veering into opinion to say that he left because of it. Did Indonesia forcibly annex East Timor? Did local leaders choose integration into Indonesia? The answer is subject to interpretation. It is a fact, however, that in 1976 Indonesia's national assembly issued a decree making East Timor a province. Similarly, writing that in 1999 the assembly revoked this decree would be more "factual" than saying that Indonesia granted East Timor independence. This is especially important if an editor is adding backgound material "at a distance."

Outside of backgrounding, news reports rely on information, interpretation and opinion that should be attributed to credible sources. This is especially the case when a dispute is at the heart of the story. The main exception would be a first-hand account by an eyewitness reporter, though this implies a relationship of considerable trust and works best with a bylined report.

Of course, few things are ever perfectly clear, and the dividing line between a presentation of general facts and an interpretive portrayal is not one of them. It is, rather, a distinction in which editorial judgment comes into play, as well as research and language skills.

A good rule of thumb is:

The more critical the material is to the development of the story, the more critical the matter of attribution becomes. In the case of the reporter being an eyewitness to events, and especially in the absence of a byline, corroborating information attributed to other sources will strengthen the report. Back to top

Care must be taken when editing a first-hand account, especially one in which the reporter is the sole source. The reason why can be illustrated well through the following bit of copy. It is assumed that the reporter was at the scene:

The bishop came out and greeted the displaced poor but left after he learned Caritas would handle the problem. The Caritas head,
however, could not be found, so the rector of the cathedral spoke to the poor, asking how he could help

Does anything strike you as problematic here？What？

It is almost certain that someone told the bishop that Caritas would handle the problem, and it is possible that the reporter overheard this. It is also possible that the bishop announced that someone from Caritas would speak to the people. Or perhaps the reporter spoke with someone who had direct or "inside" knowledge about what happened. Maybe this person also knew that the Caritas head "could not be found," another bit of information that comes out of nowhere in the copy. Both bits of information - what the bishop learned and that the Caritas head could not be found - should be attributed since they are not directly observable but are used to explain actions taken by key actors in the story.

The rule of thumb already given holds, but there is an added caution:

Make sure information presented as observed fact was at least observable!

As an application of this, it is worth noting that any attempt to explain why something happened, outside of scientific cause and effect, requires attribution. Such an explanation is inherently interpretive and non-observable. And scientific cause and effect must be truly scientific, not merely a matter of probability or sequence, as illustrated by the earlier example concerning Ferdinand Marcos and people power. Back to top

It is important that an attributed source have sufficient experience, expertise, authority or proximity to the matter at hand to shed light on it. Without this the attribution is essentially meaningless. It could even raise the suspicion in a reader's mind that a more credible source might present an opposing view - or perhaps did! Editors must ensure that appropriate credentials are presented.

"What kind of an expert? I don't know about this ..."

"That social worker seems to have been working in the field long enough to know ..."

Keep in mind that the journalistic maxim "show, don't tell" applies across the board. Saying that someone is an expert does not establish him or her as one, but citing appropriate credentials does.

The main source commenting on bioethics in a news report was a priest who headed an observatory. Editors were able to find out that the priest was a scheduled speaker at a symposium on the topic being held by a major university, and had multiple post-graduate degrees in science. This showed, at least, that his views on the subject were respected and that his formal expertise was not limited to physics.

Similarly, authority does not make one an expert. A bishop is certainly qualified to comment on policies of his diocese, but he is not a good source for presenting the concerns raised during a diocesan committee meeting that he did not attend.

Sometimes sources cannot be identified. In these cases, it is all the more important to establish sources as knowledgeable regarding the information they provide, while not giving away their identity in the process. In exceptional cases, a sensitive story from mainland China for instance, it may not be possible to give even minimal information about a source. This is acceptable, but only with compelling reasons. Resorting to an unnamed "Church source" is not an alternative to getting necessary attribution from the reporter.

Occasionally reporters are competent sources for unattributed material presented in an important story, such as information gathered by a commission they belong to. It is possible to cite them as sources if necessary, at least by their position, if it is certain that this will not compromise them. Again, this should be exceptional and not a way to get around the need for responsible reporting. And it requires extra caution.Why？

Back to top

Many editors would consider the verb say to be the most neutral of all verbs of attribution, and singularly resistant to overuse. It is as close to "pure" attribution as one can get, as is the verb write in the case of a written document. Strength is also weakness, though, and too often a source is quoted as saying much but without any context. This leaves the reader longing for the equally neutral tell to find out whom the source is speaking to!

Naturally, many verbs can be used to good effect, adding variety and useful information. It can help the flow of a story to have a source explain an explanation or clarify a clarification. But did he really assert ? Did she really warn ? Perhaps, in which case there is no problem. In such a case, though, the content and context should support the verb. Did a source affirm , or merely acknowledge ? Confirm , announce or state ?

Nuances can be very subtle. Does comment hint at detachment? Does add imply that what came first was more important? Are you sure of the order? As you carefully ponder the many considerations for attribution, remember that in virtually every case, the source said it.

In the particular situation of several graphs of material being attributed to a single source, the problem of avoiding repetition and inappropriate shades of meaning can be lessened in that it is not necessary to attribute everything. So long as the information is factual and is clearly coming from the source, intermittent attribution is sufficient. But any opinion or interpretation should be re-attributed. Back to top

Editors must be careful not to let interpretation or opinion slip by under the cover of attribution. Consider the following beginning of a report:

Various groups have demanded that the government take decisive action in the wake of violence last week directed against tribal villages.

Women's groups denounced the targeting of women in the attacks.

The second graph is not fully attributed. The problem lies in the assertion that women were targeted in the violence. Without any attribution, this comes across as a statement of fact. Is there compelling evidence for such an assertion? Has an official inquiry established this? Have some of the perpetrators admitted it? If not, what is being reported is a claim that needs to be attributed.How？

This point can perhaps be seen more easily in connection with the editors' mandate to "slay utterly" all unattributed adjectives:

Villagers protested the unfair decision.

How would you rewrite that sentence? Two ways

Back to top

All information not directly observed by the reporter or not generally known to be true, all opinion and all interpretation in news reports should be attributed.

Background information does not require attribution, but:

• make sure that the facts are accurate; and
• make sure that the facts are facts.

Remember:

• The closer you stick to the mechanics of events, the closer you stay to the "facts."

Information directly observed by a reporter does not need attribution, but:

• Information presented as observed fact must have been observable; and
• Corroborating information attributed to other sources will strengthen a report.

Editors?responsibility with regard to attribution does not end with making sure that a source is cited. They must also

• ensure that appropriate credentials are presented to show that the source is credible or in a position to speak on the matter at hand.
• be careful that a verb used to attribute material to a source does not add an unsupported or incorrect nuance.
• be careful not to let interpretation or opinion slip by under the cover of attribution, as with citing a group protesting an unfair law. Back to top