01
1. Who talks, and why
Sources speak for reasons: duty, grievance, self-protection, rivalry, vanity, conscience, or because it is their job. None of those motives disqualifies the information, and a source with an interest may be the only person who knows. What the motive does is predict the shape of the distortion, which lets you check the parts most likely to be shaded and seek the material the person has no reason to mention.
Write the motive down in your notes as an assessment, not a judgement. Note also the source's actual access: whether they saw the document, attended the meeting, heard it from somebody who did, or inferred it. An honest source with second-hand access is a weaker basis for a serious claim than a hostile source who was in the room, and only the access question is answerable by evidence.
02
2. Negotiating terms in words that survive
State the terms in specific language and record them: whether the person may be named, what description may be used if not, whether their words may be quoted, whether the information may be used to seek confirmation from others, and whether the existence of the contact itself is confidential. Vague formulas like a quiet word or between ourselves do not settle any of those questions.
Be explicit about limits you cannot control. You cannot promise that a court will never order production of material, nor that a colleague who did not make the promise will be bound by it in the same way. Where an unattributable description would identify the person to a small group of colleagues, say so before the interview rather than discovering it at the editing stage.
03
3. Protecting identity in a digital trail
A promise kept in the text can be broken by metadata. The identifying trail usually includes call and message records, building access logs, email headers, shared calendars, document properties, photographs of documents that carry a printer code or a desk in the background, and your own notes if they are stored where an employer or a court could reach them.
Practical hygiene is unglamorous: keep source contact details separate from source identities, use a code name in working documents, strip document properties before sharing anything, retype rather than reproduce a document where the copy itself would identify the person, avoid describing a distinguishing detail that only a handful of people share, and decide deliberately how long notes are kept. Storage duties also engage data-protection rules, which are examined in the law and ethics chapter.
04
4. The Irish legal setting, in outline
Irish law does not give a reporter an absolute right to withhold a source. Protection of journalistic sources has been recognised as an important element of freedom of expression, and it has also been treated as capable of being outweighed in particular circumstances by a court. That means the practical question is never whether protection exists in the abstract but what a court might order in a specific case, and what you have already written down.
Two statutes come up constantly in Irish reporting and are worth knowing by name: the Defamation Act 2009, which governs claims about damage to reputation, and the Freedom of Information Act 2014, which governs access to records held by public bodies. Data-protection obligations arise under the General Data Protection Regulation as given effect in Irish law, with the Data Protection Commission as the supervisory authority. Complaints about published journalism can go to the Office of the Press Ombudsman under the Press Council of Ireland's code.
05
5. Payment, gifts and inducements
Paying a source changes the source. Where payment happens at all it is an editorial decision taken above reporter level, recorded, and disclosed to readers where the payment could reasonably affect how the material is judged. The National Union of Journalists code of conduct and the Press Council of Ireland code both address inducements and the obligation to obtain material by honest means.
Smaller courtesies need a written house rule rather than instinct: travel and accommodation provided by the subject of a story, tickets, samples, hospitality at a launch. The workable test is whether you would be comfortable stating the arrangement in the article. If the answer is no, either decline it or disclose it, and never let the person providing it believe it has bought anything.
06
6. Vulnerable sources and children
Some people cannot weigh the consequences of talking to a reporter: children, adults in acute distress, people whose immigration status, employment or safety depends on remaining unidentified, and people whose capacity to consent is in question. With those sources, the reporter carries more of the responsibility for the outcome, and the decision to publish belongs with an editor.
The workable protections are narrow specificity and delay. Remove the detail that identifies rather than the detail that informs: a role can often stand in for a job title, a county for a village, a season for a date. Consider whether publication timing itself creates exposure. Where a child is involved, settle who may consent, what will be published, and whether the child understands where it will appear, before any interview takes place.
07
7. Keeping the promise after publication
Confidentiality does not expire when the story runs. The predictable pressures come afterwards: a demand from the subject of the story, a request from an employer, a follow-up from another newsroom, a legal letter, a friendly question at an event. A promise made before publication binds you through all of them, which is exactly why it should be made only when you are prepared for that.
Practical steps reduce the pressure. Decide with an editor in advance who inside the newsroom needs to know the identity, and keep that number as small as the verification allows. Agree what will be said if the source is asked about publicly. Keep only the material you can justify keeping, in a place you control, and review it when the story is closed rather than years later.
08
8. Writing the source into the story honestly
Readers judge unnamed material by how it is described, so the description must be as informative as confidentiality allows. Say what kind of access the person had and why they cannot be named, in general terms: a person who attended the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to discuss it. That sentence tells a reader far more than the phrase a source said.
Avoid three habits that erode trust. Do not inflate one person into sources. Do not use an unattributed voice to carry the sharpest criticism in the piece while named voices carry only the mild parts. Do not use anonymity to protect a person from accountability for what they are saying about somebody else. Where the material is serious, an unnamed source should be supporting evidence, not the whole of it.
What each agreed term commits you to
| Agreed term | What may appear | Duty afterwards |
|---|---|---|
| Named, on the record | Name, role, exact words | Accuracy of quotation and context |
| Role described only | Words plus a general description of access | Ensure the description does not identify |
| Information only | The substance in your own words | No quotation, no attribution of denial or attack |
| Contact itself confidential | Nothing about the source or the contact | Do not confirm the relationship to anyone outside the agreed circle |
Checklist for a confidential source
- Terms stated in specific words and written into the notes with a time.
- Source access and motive assessed and recorded separately.
- Code name used in working documents; identity known to the fewest people possible.
- Metadata, document properties and contact records considered before sharing anything.
- Identifying detail in the copy tested against a small-group readership.
- Retention period for notes and audio decided deliberately, not by default.
Questions readers ask
Can a reporter in Ireland always refuse to name a source?
No. Source protection is recognised as important to freedom of expression but is not treated as absolute, and a court may order disclosure in particular circumstances. Take advice from a qualified professional on any specific demand.
Is off the record the same as unattributable?
Not in most newsrooms. Off the record usually means nothing may be published at all; unattributable usually means the words may be used with the person described rather than named. Agree the meaning explicitly each time.
Should an unnamed source ever carry the main allegation alone?
It is a serious editorial risk. Where the claim is grave, an unnamed source should normally support documentary or on-the-record evidence rather than stand in place of it.