How – and why — to share confidential tips with Narwhal journalists

This week, we published two massive investigations. They take place in different provinces, but share an important trait: they were both made possible because people trusted us to handle sensitive information with care — people who share our commitment to bringing the public information it has a right to know.

It’s what we always do. We’ve been breaking stories that have real-world, tangible impact for over eight years. 

As a source, you can trust us because we’ll always handle your information with privacy and protection in mind. We hope our body of work speaks to how we treat leaked and confidential information: over the years, we’ve reported on a recording from inside a TC Energy meeting and a leaked Ontario cabinet document about expropriating land for major infrastructure projects. Got a story tip? Drop us a line, securely, over here.

And as a reader, you can trust us because after we earn the trust of whistleblowers, we work to earn yours by thoroughly verifying the facts they’ve led us to. 

Both of this week’s stories rely on information from sources we don’t name. We decided it was time to explain our approach to using confidential sources, which readers can now find embedded in this week’s investigations — because we want you to know where this information is coming from.

The Narwhal only agrees to keep names confidential when we believe two things. First, that the person we’re speaking with is putting themselves at genuine risk, either personal or professional, by sharing this information with us. Second, that the information they’re sharing is in the public interest. Our decision to do so is never made lightly. 

There are two types of unnamed sources. A confidential source is someone whose name we know, but aren’t sharing. We make multiple attempts to verify their identity and information with other sources. If we aren’t able to get a second source, we say so. 

An anonymous source is someone whose name we don’t know. It is incredibly rare for The Narwhal to publish a story with a completely anonymous source. In these instances, we don’t publish until we have verified the information shared with us with at least one other source. 

And again, these stories must be in the public interest. If you want a definition of what that is, we like this one from the U.K.’s National Union of Journalists. 

Another thing we’ve reported on is how federal and provincial Canadian governments — in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. — are becoming increasingly secretive. Many rarely acknowledge, let alone answer, when we ask for interviews to learn more about these crucial topics. Even when they do, they often do not answer our specific questions, and will only respond with written statements. This undermines their responsibility to you, the public, to be transparent about the actions they are taking and why. 

At times like these, the courage of whistleblowers is to be admired. We value them greatly. At the same time, our promise to readers is The Narwhal will always make sure the facts are airtight.

If you’ve got questions or comments, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Our coverage is always shaped by, and for, the public interest.