How Rolling Stone Uses Anonymous Sources In Our Reporting

A memo from Executive Editor Sean Woods

Rolling Stone is committed to publishing investigative pieces at the highest standard. In certain cases, our reporters and editors will agree not to name sources in order to protect them against harm both professional and/or physical. While all efforts to urge a source to speak on the record should be employed, we will grant people the opportunity to use a pseudonym or speak without direct attribution should the need arise — and should the information rise to the level of newsworthiness. However, sources’ identities should be known by at least one editor, and, in most cases, anonymous sources should be backed up by on-the-record sources.

In all cases when using pseudonymous sources, Rolling Stone must provide sufficient information so that the reader understands how the unnamed source knows the information, and any biases the source may have. An anonymous source should be used only after deliberations between at least two editors and/or the department head. That source’s veracity should be confirmed by top editors and the research department.

We ask that our reporters avoid using short-hand phrases which everyone may not understand or agree on the meaning, including “confidential,” “off the record,” “not for attribution,” “anonymous” or “on background.” We aim to use terminology that is clear and specific, such as “I will not name you in the article.”

The type of reporting we do at Rolling Stone is often hard,  and at times contentious, but we remain committed to to publishing investigative pieces of the highest standard that serve our readers.