Anonymous sources are essential to good journalism

The hunger to be first with the news is the excitement and competitive spirit that drives journalism. The reports of defections on Valentine’s Day turned out to be accurate; it was just that Umunna and colleagues changed their minds. The reports were not wrong; they were just right too early

Every now and again there is a small moral panic about the use of anonymous sources in journalism. I mention it now because we have just had a good example of why it is misplaced.

There had been rumours that a group of Labour MPs were about to defect for a while. As Valentine’s Day approached, they became more specific. Chuka Umunna and Chris Leslie were mentioned, along with Luciana Berger, Mike Gapes and Angela Smith.

But 14 February came and went. Two rooms in the Palace of Westminster booked in the names of Umunna and Leslie went unused. Most media attention was devoted to another symbolic defeat of the government in a Brexit vote in the Commons.

Then, last weekend, there were reports that an announcement was expected on Monday morning. Readers could be forgiven for muttering that they had heard it all before and nothing had happened, and that the reports were all attributed to anonymous sources or even just “it is understood that”, “Westminster was last night braced for” and “expected to be plunged into chaos”.

Of course, it doesn’t matter much that some journalists reported the news before it happened. The world would not have changed if the first anyone had heard of Labour defections was when Luciana Berger walked into the room at County Hall on the other side of the river from the House of Commons.

But the hunger to be first with the news is the excitement and competitive spirit that drives journalism. The reports of defections on Valentine’s Day turned out to be accurate; it was just that Umunna and colleagues changed their minds. The reports were not wrong; they were just right too early.

Sometimes two very different groups of people complain about off-the-record briefings. Government ministers sometimes say that they are not going to comment on statements from anonymous sources. And some of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters condemn the mainstream media – that is, the journalists who care about getting things right and checking their facts – for “making up” anonymous quotations in order to undermine their leader.

In fact, most of Corbyn’s critics have hardly held back from criticising him in public, but last week we saw what some of them said now that they are liberated from party discipline. Indeed, it is a good rule of thumb to assume, when you see an anonymous quotation, that what was really said was far worse.

The past week has been a good time to remember that the flow of well sourced but anonymous information is essential to free media.

Yours,

John Rentoul

Chief political commentator