This summer, we received a letter from someone in the community about water use. Actually, we don’t know if the person is from the community because they never identified who they were or where they lived.
The writer questioned the “myth” of local water conservation, suggesting the District of Squamish does not impose water restrictions to conserve water, but rather to prevent the district from paying the cost of providing that water, of which there is ample supply.
The reason this letter never saw the light of day was that its author did not disclose an identity or means of contacting them to verify the letter was legitimate. It is standard practice at newspapers to require a person sending a letter to provide their name and contact information.
The letter writer addressed this early in the submission, saying this practice prevents whistleblowers from communicating with the media.
The problem here is that the letter writer mistakes the letters to the editor section for the news section of the paper, which is where we can actually break stories and use whistleblowers. Think of it another way: why would you want your big scoop on page 11 when you might get it on page one?
Frankly, nothing in the letter in question is really anything that can be called whistleblowing, but rather mere commentary on what the letter author says are the practices of the district in regards to its utility. It’s conjecture rather than fact.
Even if a letter writer, or anyone for that matter, approaches us to blow the whistle on something, we still need to know who this person is. Again, this is standard practice in the craft journalism, as it helps us avoid chasing bad stories or sources down some rabbit hole from which we can’t escape.
For a letter, we need to identify you. For a story idea, assuming you have some real inside information, we may choose to withhold your name and other identifying information in a story.
Think Watergate and its “Deep Throat,” Mark Felt of the FBI. It was up to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to protect his identity, which they did until Felt admitted his role decades later.
It’s our job then to protect a source, which journalists do, sometimes to the extent of facing a contempt charge and jail time.
Trust goes both ways, after all. To be blunt, why the heck should we trust you as a source or anything you have to say, if you don’t trust us enough to let us know who you are?
