Sourcing and Attribution: The Basics

Attribution answers the reader’s first question about any statement of fact: how do you know? In a news report the answer is usually built into the sentence. In a column it is easy to forget, because the writer’s own voice is so prominent that every sentence starts to sound like the writer’s own knowledge. It rarely is. Most of what a columnist knows, they learned from someone else, and the reader is entitled to know from whom.

This note covers the basics as we understand them: what needs a source, which sources to prefer, how to word an attribution, and how to keep a record that will let you stand behind the piece later. Our guidelines ask every columnist to show their sources; this is the practical side of that request.

What needs a source

A useful rule: anything a reasonable reader could ask “says who?” about needs an answer on the page. That includes:

• figures of any kind: amounts, percentages, counts, dates of events;
• quotations, and close paraphrases of what someone said or wrote;
• descriptions of what a document, law, ruling or report contains;
• claims about what happened at an event you did not attend;
• another writer’s original argument, finding or phrase, even when you go on to disagree with it.

What does not need a source is widely known, uncontested fact (the capital of a country, the year a well-documented war ended) and your own opinion, which is attributed by your byline. The difficult middle ground is the claim that feels common knowledge but is not. When in doubt, source it. An unnecessary citation costs a few words; a missing one can cost the column its credibility.

Prefer the original

Sources sit at different distances from the facts. A government budget is closer to the figures than a news story about the budget, which is closer than a social media post about the news story. Each step away adds the possibility of error, simplification or spin.

Wherever you can, go to the original: the report itself, the full text of the speech, the published data, the court’s judgment. Read the part you intend to rely on, and check that it says what the secondary source said it says. It is a common experience for a writer to find that the original is more qualified, more limited or simply different from the summary that reached them first.

When you cannot reach the original, attribute to the source you actually used: “according to a report in the local paper” rather than “according to the ministry”, if you never saw the ministry’s document. Attribution should describe the chain of knowledge as it is, not as it ought to be.

Word the attribution precisely

The verb of attribution carries meaning, and the choice is not neutral. A few distinctions we find worth keeping:

• “Said” and “wrote” are the plainest verbs and the safest. They report the statement without commenting on it.
• “According to” suits documents and data: “according to the council’s published minutes”.
• “Claimed”, “insisted” and “admitted” each add a judgement. “Claimed” suggests doubt, “insisted” suggests resistance, “admitted” suggests that something was being concealed. Use them only when you mean exactly that, and can show why.
• “Revealed” implies the information was previously hidden. Most published reports reveal nothing; they state.

Place the attribution where it belongs. If only the second half of a sentence comes from a source, the attribution should make that clear. And when a source is unnamed, say why: “an official who was not authorised to speak publicly” tells the reader more than “a source”, and it tells them what weight to give the statement.

Quote exactly, and in context

Quotation marks are a promise that the words inside them are the speaker’s own, in that order. Keep that promise. If you have trimmed a quotation, mark the omission. If you are working from memory or from notes you cannot verify, paraphrase rather than quote.

Exact words can still mislead if they are lifted from their setting. A sentence that was a hypothetical, a quotation of someone else or a joke should not be presented as a plain statement of position. Before relying on a quotation, read the paragraphs around it and ask whether the speaker would recognise your use of it as fair.

Link to the thing itself

On VeriTaus, links in a story are ordinary links (the features page describes them), and they are the most useful attribution a web column can offer. A reader can follow the link and check the source in seconds. To make that work:

• link to the specific document, page or section, not a site’s home page;
• make the linked words describe the destination: “the council’s budget for next year”, not “here” or “this”;
• name the source in the text as well, so the attribution survives if the link breaks or the column is read in print or in a feed reader;
• check every link before publishing, and again when you update the piece.

Images and borrowed work

Attribution is not only for facts. Another writer’s argument, an illustrator’s drawing or a photographer’s picture is their work, and using it requires credit and, in most cases, permission. Our guidelines are explicit that copying the work of others without permission is not allowed, however it is credited. A credit line acknowledges the author; it does not license the use.

The same courtesy applies to ideas. If your column builds on an argument you first met in another writer’s work, name them and link to it. Readers do not think less of a columnist who acknowledges influence; they tend to think more.

Keep a source record

Finally, keep notes that will let you reconstruct where each fact came from. A simple list for each column is enough: the claim, the source, the link or document, and the date you checked it. Save copies of documents that might change or disappear.

The record earns its keep the day a reader questions a figure. With it, you can confirm the fact in minutes, or discover that you were wrong and correct it promptly. Our note on writing corrections and updates picks up from there. Good sourcing does not make a columnist infallible; it makes their errors findable and fixable, which is what a reader of record has a right to expect.