Guide
Build a Human Source Network You Can Report From
An interview worksheet for finding firsthand knowledge, agreeing attribution and checking accounts without treating people as quote suppliers.
What makes a person a useful source?
A useful source has relevant knowledge they can explain, and you can describe how they know it. That may be direct experience, responsibility for a decision, or specialist expertise. A prominent job title alone does not establish knowledge of the event you are reporting.
Build your source map around roles in the decision: who makes it, who implements it, who experiences its effects and who can assess it independently. Seek disagreement and missing perspectives rather than assembling several people who repeat the same account.
Agree on the conversation's terms
Explain who you are, the subject you are reporting and where the work may appear. Agree on attribution before the substantive conversation. Do not assume both parties attach the same meaning to “background” or “off the record.” If someone needs confidentiality, pause to establish what can be used and how it can be described.
The SPJ Code of Ethics emphasizes verification, clear identification of sources and explaining anonymity when it is used. For a solo publisher, these are practical credibility obligations as well as ethical ones. Do not promise protection you cannot actually provide.
Keep an interview evidence sheet
| Field | Question to ask or record |
|---|---|
| Basis of knowledge | Did you see this, decide it, document it or hear it from someone? |
| Specific account | What happened, when, and in what setting? |
| Supporting material | Is there a record I can inspect or cite? |
| Boundaries | What is outside your knowledge? |
| Interests | What relationship or stake should readers know about? |
| Attribution | What exact identification and use have we agreed? |
| Corroboration | What independent check remains? |
Take notes that distinguish a direct quotation from your paraphrase. If you record, get appropriate consent and follow applicable rules. Confirm names, roles, dates and technical terms before publication. A factual check is not a promise of editorial approval.
Separate an account from a verified finding
Suppose a hypothetical operations manager says a new process halved approval time. Ask which approvals, over what period, how time was measured and whether the comparison excludes unresolved cases. Look for records or other participants who can corroborate the account.
If you only have the manager's recollection, attribute it as such. Do not turn it into an established result or imply your interview independently audited the claim. Give people or organizations a fair opportunity to respond to substantive criticism.
Make the relationship sustainable
Follow up when the reporting changes, correct mistakes promptly and keep promises about confidentiality. Store contact details and sensitive notes with access appropriate to their sensitivity. A source network compounds because people trust your process and you remember the context, not because every conversation produces a quotable line.
Use a standing file to retain the question, evidence and next check without unnecessarily retaining personal information.
Keep reading