Stephen Hume
Vancouver Sun

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Every story has two versions. There is the official version, put out by
institutional authorities, usually after considerable tweaking either to
enhance their image or to diminish negative impact.

And there is the unofficial version, often quite different from the official
version. It can be unflattering, challenge the official point of view, even
cause the public to raise awkward questions.

One of our duties in the press, both to readers and to the broader public,
is to provide the unofficial version as well as the official version so that
the two can be compared and evaluated.

Which is why we don't simply print politicians' media releases verbatim in
the news columns, but also strive to talk both on and off the record to
other people who might shed light on the subject.

Frequently the unofficial version comes to light in bits and pieces and is
fully realized only when some diligent reporter assembles verifiable
fragments gleaned from many unauthorized sources.

Sometimes the unofficial story emerges when a source close to or within the
official institution decides to leak to a reporter sensitive information he
or she believes the public has a right to know but which the official story
either hasn't included or has played down.

One of the most important ethical contracts in this transaction is trust
between the reporter and the source. The reporter must trust the source's
integrity. The source must trust the reporter's assurance that the
information will be received in confidence.

If that confidence is betrayed, all the sources of the unofficial story may
reasonably consider themselves at risk and an important element of the
democratic process -- providing the public with alternatives to the official
version of things -- is compromised.

Which is why reporters are so adamant about not identifying sources to whom
they've promised confidence, even when threatened with serious consequences
by the authorities themselves.

And it is why people outside the newsrooms of the country should be paying
close attention to a judge's decision Tuesday to make a reporter at the
Hamilton Spectator responsible for $31,000 in costs.

His sin? Declining to obey an order from the bench that he betray his
conscience, his principles and his promise to a confidential source that he
would not reveal his or her identity.

In 1995, somebody leaked Ken Peters documents that involved allegations
about poor care practices and abuse of residents and staff at a retirement
home. When he was called as a witness and ordered to identify his source
during a civil suit in which the institution is now suing the government
over the leaking of the documents, he respectfully said he could not.

Ontario Superior Court Justice David Crane, who cited Peters for contempt of
court when the reporter said his conscience did not permit him to betray his
source, charged against him the costs of court proceedings delayed by the
refusal.

But it had the broader effect, as Peters points out, of placing an enormous
chill on journalists across the country who rely on their unofficial
sources' trust that reporters will keep their word when they promise not to
tell anyone where they got their information.