If you decide to share your story with the media, you need to understand key terms that may be referenced by a journalist in an interview.
It is also important to learn terminology that will help you protect yourself, as well as some legal terms relating to whistleblowing and the media.
Note: Many newsrooms adhere to unique style guidelines, so the way terms are used or defined is subject to change. It is best to clarify any points of confusion with the journalist prior to the conversation—for example, to ensure confidentiality, if needed.
A
Actual malice:
A legal requirement imposed on public figures to prove that a media outlet or reporter made a false statement on purpose or with reckless disregard for accuracy. Actual malice must be proven in defamation cases for public figures to recover any damages from the lawsuit. Private figures are not required to prove actual malice.
This standard was established by the US Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), in which L.B. Sullivan, the Public Safety Commissioner for Montgomery, Alabama, sued the Times for running an ad that alleged abuse by the Montgomery police amid civil rights protests. Although the ad did not mention his name, Sullivan felt he had been maligned and that the ad gave a defamatory impression of his leadership. The court ruled in favor of the Times; in a unanimous opinion, Justice William Brennan wrote that when a statement concerns a public figure, libel can only be proven with actual malice. (Source: US Courts)
Anonymity:
The condition of keeping a person’s identity unknown to the public. Whistleblowers and other sources may ask for anonymity when speaking with a journalist, so as to share critical information while shielding their identity and protecting themselves and their families from retaliation or other harm. Note: It should never be assumed that a journalist will keep a source’s identity anonymous unless that has been explicitly stated.
A journalist is not required to grant anonymity. Often, publications do not permit sources to remain anonymous unless there is reason to believe the source could be in danger. If a source’s request for anonymity is rejected, the source has a right to remove themselves from the interview process if they wish.
If a journalist does grant anonymity to a source, it is recommended to obtain the promise of anonymity in writing. Once anonymity is granted, the publication does not publish or share any identifying information about the source in a story. They also do not share the person’s identity with the public or anyone outside of their direct reporting and editing team, including legal officials or juries (see Important to Know).
If a journalist breaks this anonymity agreement, a source may sue for publication of private facts. More information is available at the Digital Media Law Project.
In this New York Times report of sexual harassment accusations against Governor Andrew Cuomo, the anonymity of a whistleblower is recognized.
Attribution:
The ascribing of information or quotes to a particular source in a published work. Journalists use attributions to indicate where information came from, as proof it was not falsified or editorialized. Journalists use a variety of attribution styles, including direct quotes and paraphrasing; or, they may opt to not attribute information when a source demands Anonymity.
This reporting from The Verge shows a paraphrased attribution followed by a direct quote.
C
Correction:
The adjustment of a public statement in print or in an online article. A correction is made when factual errors occur that do not alter the main points of the story (for example, the misspelling of a name). Corrections are often quietly made and can be initiated by a journalist, a source, or by someone else named or referenced in the article. If a factual error alters the main points of the story, however, it is subject to a retraction.
The factual error in this New York Times story did not alter the key points of the reporting, thus warranting only a correction.
D
Defamation:
The communication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Written defamation is known as libel, and oral defamation is known as slander.
Each state has its own defamation laws, but they all share a universal set of basic standards:
-
- Defamation only applies to information shared as fact, not opinion.
- A true statement that damages a person’s reputation is not defamation.
- Defamation can apply to any published work, including social media.
Take heed of these best practices to avoid committing defamation when speaking with a journalist:
-
- Be clear when presenting information as fact versus as opinion.
- Use qualifying language to emphasize when a claim is an opinion (for example, “I think,” “I believe,” “It appears”).
- Avoid allegations of criminality, especially in the absence of evidence.
Here are several examples of recent defamation cases:
Nicholas Sandmann v. The Washington Post (2019)
High school student Nicholas Sandmann filed a $250 million lawsuit against The Washington Post for its coverage of a viral video depicting his interaction with a Native American activist during a protest in Washington, DC. Sandmann said the Post’s coverage thrust him into a national spotlight, resulting in criticism and backlash. He identified 33 statements in the coverage that he found defamatory, including mention of his “Make America Great Again” hat and references to unfavorable online commentary about the video. The case was dismissed by a federal judge in Kentucky, whose 36-page opinion ruled the Post was not liable for publishing the opinions of others and/or factual details that may be unfavorable to the plaintiff. (Source: Courthouse News Service)
Vernon Unsworth v. Elon Musk (2018)
British explorer Vernon Unsworth garnered global fame in 2018 when he rescued 12 boys and one adult from a flooded cave in Thailand. Following the rescue, Unsworth reportedly told CNN that billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk had promised a mini-submarine to help, but never delivered. Unsworth’s interview prompted Musk to clap back on Twitter, including a tweet that called Unsworth a “pedo guy.” Unsworth responded by filing a $190 million defamation suit, which hinged on the question of Musk’s intention and impact in tweeting such comments. Musk came out of the trial victorious, as a federal court judge rejected the case after the prosecution was unable to prove that Musk’s tweet both identified the plaintiff and caused harm. And because Unsworth brought the suit as a private individual, not a public figure, he was unable to claim Actual malice. (Source: Reuters)
Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media (2016)
Terry Bollea, aka professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, sued Gawker Media for invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, and infringement of personality rights after a Gawker editor published portions of a sex tape featuring Bollea. The case was settled for $31 million after nearly four years of litigation. Prior to settlement, Gawker was facing a $140 million judgement, prompting the media outlet to file for bankruptcy and sell its assets to Univision — which shut down the Gawker site and removed the content involved in the suit. The settlement was reached as the fight “ultimately proved too difficult to sustain” financially for Gawker, facing off against Bollea, whose legal fund was backed by billionaire Peter Thiel. (Source: The New York Times)
Project Veritas v. The New York Times (2020)
Right-wing investigative group Project Veritas filed a suit against The New York Times, claiming an opinion article had defamed the organization by implying it is deceptive. In its legal response, the Times listed 14 separate clauses for defense, including that its coverage was published as opinion and not fact, and that Project Veritas cannot prove that the statements said to be defamatory are false. Outcome: Litigation is ongoing. Since the filing, Twitter has permanently suspended Project Veritas for sharing “private information” and group founder James O’Keefe for sharing “manipulative information” — and O’Keefe has filed a defamation suit against Twitter for the suspension. (Source: The Hill)
Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News (2021)
Election tech company Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion suit against Fox Corporation — including Fox News anchors Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, and Jeanine Pirro — for allegedly reporting false claims that Dominion rigged vote-counting machines in the 2020 US presidential election. The suit claimed Dominion lost major contracts over Fox’s reporting of election fraud and accusations that Dominion manipulated its technology to impact the election. Litigation is ongoing; this lawsuit followed a nearly identical one filed by fellow election tech company Smartmatic. In a complaint, Dominion’s lawyers noted that if this case “does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does.” (Source: The New York Times)
Doxing (or Doxxing):
The act of publicly revealing private and personal information about an individual or organization. This is most commonly done on the internet across various forms of social media, with malicious intent to harass. Doxing attacks most commonly reveal identifying information, such as phone numbers, social security numbers, home addresses, and banking information, but can also include other personal details or photos.
Example: In 2020, Fox News host Tucker Carlson accused a New York Times reporter of planning to share personal information about Carlson in an upcoming story. In response, Carlson’s supporters doxxed the reporter, sharing information including the reporter’s address on Twitter and encouraging the public to visit his home. (Source: Business Insider)
Doxed information is often retrieved through phishing scams, sifting through public records, or stalking social media profiles. Doxing is not considered illegal if the information is retrieved from the public domain. For details on protecting yourself from doxing, see Preparing for Retaliation.
E
Embargo:
A ban on publishing activity, frequently imposed by a whistleblower or source to prevent the publication of information before a specific date or time. It is common to require an oral or written confirmation of the embargo from a journalist before sharing embargoed information with them.
This source indicated that his report was only available if the reporter agreed to an embargo, banning her from publishing anything before a specified date.
Exclusive:
A story or information shared to or by one media outlet. If a source offers an exclusive to a journalist, the source is agreeing to not share their story with other reporters.
Glossier employees spoke to one reporter at Fortune to bring their story to the public. This exclusivity secured media hype and attention around the story.
L
Libel:
A form of defamation, via the written word.
O
Off the record:
When a conversation with a reporter is held in confidence and not for publication. Information shared in an off-the-record call, text conversation, or e-mail may not be used or referenced in any way by the journalist, in an article or otherwise. Note: Some journalists still record off-the-record conversations for their own notes. Check with the journalist to confirm their intentions before the interview.
On the record (also referred to as “for attribution”):
When a conversation is held under the condition that it can be shared publicly and attributed back to the source. Note: This is the default condition for media interviews, unless otherwise noted or clarified.
On background (also referred to as “not for attribution”):
When a conversation is held under the condition that information can be shared publicly, but not attributed to the source. Note: The definition of “on background” may vary by journalist, particularly in the context of using direct quotes from a source without attribution. Check with the journalist to confirm their intentions before the interview.
Reporters are likely to be interested in hearing a whistleblower’s story even if information cannot be shared on the record. Although this information will not be directly published and/or attributed, it can be helpful to a reporter’s overall research and for networking with other sources.
P
Publication of private facts:
The publication of information about someone’s personal life that could be considered offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate concern to the public.
Retraction:
The withdrawal of a public statement. A retraction is often issued when factual errors alter the main points of a story. Media outlets commonly issue retractions when it becomes apparent that false or incorrect information was accidentally published. This is done carefully, as it is often seen as admitting a mistake. A media outlet does not need permission from a source to retract information attributed to that source.
Retractions are often publicized and can be requested by anyone who may feel impacted by the statement (such as a source, journalist, public figure, company, or community member). A source can ask the media outlet for a retraction when they wish to change their narrative or correct any misleading information they may have shared. Asking for a retraction should be a last resort; alternatively, a source can ask for a Correction if the error does not drastically alter the main points of a story.
Media outlets are not required to grant retraction requests. The decision to accept or decline such a request is usually made among the reporter and managing editors, sometimes traveling up to internal PR teams, editors-in-chief, or publishing executives. Media outlets that choose to not grant a retraction request may face legal action.
The style in which a retraction is publicized varies by the outlet and the severity of the error. If the error is limited to a piece of information, the details of the retraction are likely to appear at the top or bottom of one of the story’s pages. If the retraction applies to the entire story, the story is often replaced with an explanatory note.
Although this story’s link and headline still exist, the article was retracted and replaced with a retraction explanation from the editor.
S
Shield law (also known as “reporter’s privilege”): A law that protects journalists from being forced to reveal their sources in state court. This protection generally gives journalists the right to refuse to testify to both information and sources of information obtained in their reporting work; this is important in order to protect the credibility of the press and protect the public from leveraging government or private interests in a court of law.
Shield laws vary significantly by state; there is no federal shield law. For details on shield law, including what and who is protected, cross-state cases, and case studies, see Important to Know.
A state-by-state map of current shield law protections. (Source: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press)
Slander:
A type of defamation that is oral.
Source:
The person, organization, website, event, or means by which information is obtained. This term is often used in reference to a whistleblower.
T
Tip:
Information shared with a journalist that can impact an ongoing storyline or spark interest in a new story. Tips can be made anonymously and can include as much or as little detail as the source wishes. Media outlets may offer anonymous tip lines for readers to share information with the newsroom at large. Such tips are often vetted by editors and then assigned to a reporter with a relevant coverage area.
A newsroom-wide tip line at Bloomberg News. Reporters may also have personal tip lines.
W
Whistleblower:
A person who exposes fraudulent, wasteful, discriminatory, injurious, or unethical activity within a workplace or other realm with the intent of protecting the health and/or safety of other employees and/or the public. Whistleblowers can exist in both the public and private sectors, and typically reveal the wrongdoings of their current or former employer. In most cases, a whistleblower is legally protected from retaliation from the respective workplace. A whistleblower can also be referred to as a source.
