JN0-1102 information source - Design, Associate (JNCDA) Updated: 2023

Transparency is critical to our credibility with the public and our subscribers. Whenever possible, we pursue information on the record. When a newsmaker insists on background or off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines, enforced by AP news managers.

 Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:

 1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the report.

 2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.

 3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have direct knowledge of the information.

 Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source, and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source's identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted by a manager should editors and producers allow it to be used.

 Reporters should proceed with interviews on the assumption they are on the record. If the source wants to set conditions, these should be negotiated at the start of the interview. At the end of the interview, the reporter should try once again to move onto the record some or all of the information that was given on a background basis.

 The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source when sourcing is anonymous. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient – when material comes from an authoritative figure who provides information so detailed that there is no question of its accuracy.

 We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source's motive for disclosing the information. If the story hinges on documents, as opposed to interviews, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.

The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source's credibility; simply quoting "a source" is not allowed. We should be as descriptive as possible: "according to top White House aides" or "a senior official in the British Foreign Office." The description of a source must never be altered without consulting the reporter.

 We must not say that a person declined comment when that person the person is already quoted anonymously. And we should not attribute information to anonymous sources when it is obvious or well known. We should just state the information as fact.

Stories that use anonymous sources must carry a reporter's byline. If a reporter other than the bylined staffer contributes anonymous material to a story, that reporter should be given credit as a contributor to the story.

 All complaints and questions about the authenticity or veracity of anonymous material – from inside or outside the AP – must be promptly brought to the news manager's attention.

 Not everyone understands “off the record” or “on background” to mean the same things. Before any interview in which any degree of anonymity is expected, there should be a discussion in which the ground rules are set explicitly.

These are the AP’s definitions:

On the record. The information can be used with no caveats, quoting the source by name.

Off the record. The information cannot be used for publication. Background. The information can be published but only under conditions negotiated with the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. AP reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief a group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record.

Deep background. The information can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.

In general, information obtained under any of these circumstances can be pursued with other sources to be placed on the record.

ANONYMOUS SOURCES IN MATERIAL FROM OTHER NEWS SOURCES

Reports from other news organizations based on anonymous sources require the most careful scrutiny when we consider them for our report.

AP's basic rules for anonymous source material apply to material from other news outlets just as they do in our own reporting: The material must be factual and obtainable no other way. The story must be truly significant and newsworthy. Use of anonymous material must be authorized by a manager. The story we produce must be balanced, and comment must be sought.

Further, before picking up such a story we must make a bona fide effort to get it on the record, or, at a minimum, confirm it through our own reporting. We shouldn't hesitate to hold the story if we have any doubts. If another outlet’s anonymous material is ultimately used, it must be attributed to the originating news organization and note its description of the source.

ATTRIBUTION

 Anything in the AP news report that could reasonably be disputed should be attributed. We should give the full name of a source and as much information as needed to identify the source and explain why the person s credible. Where appropriate, include a source's age; title; name of company, organization or government department; and hometown. If we quote someone from a written document – a report, email or news release -- we should say so. Information taken from the internet must be vetted according to our standards of accuracy and attributed to the original source. File, library or archive photos, audio or videos must be identified as such. For lengthy stories, attribution can be contained in an extended editor's note detailing interviews, research and methodology.

It is becoming extra important to be aware and think twice before accepting information from a given source on the internet or for example from another person. In today’s time anyone from anywhere can access any data within seconds.

With such ease in accessing information one would think that some core issues of the society like health and wellness, emotional well-being, etc. would and should Boost but unfortunately that has not been the case to a large extent. On the contrary, it can be observed that these core issues are on the rise. Onset of health problems from an early age due to misinformation/lacking awareness on food and nutrition is increasing at an alarming rate despite having the web of information that we can access easily today. If one is aware and mindful, then in true sense having this vast sea of information also poses a serious challenge for all of us.

There are many people / organizations that put out information that might be best for their self-interest but might not be good for the overall well-being of the society. These forces often mindlessly have an aim to make profits for their capitalistic agendas by willing to go to any lengths.

To set the points mentioned above in perspective, following are two examples that I have personally observed on a large scale. The lack of awareness on how important the food we consume is seriously alarming. People are putting “junk” in their bodies without even realizing what harm it does to them right away as it enters our system (we might not see the effects of such food right away, but it slowly builds up and ruins the body over time, taking us to the very point when onset of diseases start to happen). Now, a lot of times people are convinced that such food items are not that bad, and why, because information on internet backs that these foods are good for us. We fail to understand that the companies out there are analysing what pleases our taste buds, and then not a single thought is given further. The next steps for them are to directly come up with food items that are chemically processed (in a way that pleases our taste), manufactured, and packaged, and of course companies find ways to back and justify that these are good for us. Right away the chain of profits start coming their ways. At the same time, we continue to consume these without understanding that each time it enters our body, it is basically sowing the seed of diseases that start to come our way in a matter of time.

This leads us to the second example which is now as we start to have diseases because of consumption of such foods, our first response becomes to go seek treatment. From a young age we are prescribed medicines, and sadly we again feel satisfied that as we are having the medicine, we can continue to live the way we are. During this entire time companies / individuals who are selling such food items / medicines continue to earn big cash, but at what cost – cost is our health and fault is also ours, as we let them control us, and believe what they have to say without even a single question.

Therefore, a general rule of thumb could be to not believe and follow things that we see / read or are told blindly and mindlessly, while a reasonable approach could be to take a step back and not rush to come up with a decision right away. It is quite important to question new information, and then if anything makes sense to us, we can try to adopt it, and then further evaluate if it makes sense or not. It is crucial that we become very selective on what we are to incorporate in our lives.

As we see society might be having the set norms the way it does, it is important to not forget that we all as individuals are unique and different. Today, we are lucky that we have access to such data and information at no cost, but as we know with great power comes great responsibility. The responsibility at our end therefore becomes to identify and ensure that source of information has a genuine intent on improving and helping the society in becoming a better place to live, and direct us to push ourselves to live our lives to the fullest potential by becoming the best version of ourselves.

We all have the ability to question information, experiment with the information on ourselves, apply / adopt it if it makes sense, and then further evaluate if it is something to be incorporated in our lives on a sustained basis based on the experience we might get as we experiment with it!

END OF ARTICLE

Copyright © 2023 IDG Communications, Inc.

Hampshire, UK – 11th May 2023: A new study from Juniper Research, the foremost experts in cybersecurity markets, has found that the total cost of software supply chain cyberattacks to businesses will exceed $80.6 billion globally by 2026, up from $45.8 billion in 2023. This growth of 76% reflects increasing risks from absent software supply chain security processes, and the rising complexity of software supply chains overall.

The new study, Vulnerable Software Supply Chains Are a Multi-billion Dollar Problem, highlights the need for greater emphasis on the software elements of the supply chain as a critical security vulnerability. The study analysed how both shifts in wider cybersecurity processes, and the mindset around the management of the software supply chain are needed to address these risks.

"The software supply chain has been neglected over the years as a source of risk, leading to a situation where organisations face significant issues, if they cannot change the way they operate," said Nick Maynard, report author and Head of Research at Juniper Research. "As software supply chains become more complex, the problem becomes exponentially more complicated, requiring immediate attention to resolve, through regulations, SBOMs (Software Bills of Materials), embedded security, and cybersecurity solutions."

BlackBerry, a seasoned security vendor, commented on the study. "Enhancing the security of software supply chains is critical for national security and for building a trusted digital world," said Arvind Raman, CISO, BlackBerry. "BlackBerry welcomes this study from Juniper Research, which outlines why software supply chain security practices must be adopted by all industries, and we are pleased to be recognised for our best-in-class security solutions that address this market need. BlackBerry has long been a champion of built-in security and a pioneer of cybersecurity, which is why we have earned the trust of organisations around the world."

The study also examines the importance of software supply chains across several verticals, including, financial services, government, automotive, and healthcare, making the study vital reading for key stakeholders in those high-risk industries.

The study can be viewed here.

About Juniper Research

Juniper Research provides research and analytical services to the global hi-tech communications sector; providing consultancy, analyst reports, and industry commentary.

The soaring cost of a bachelor's degree has fueled growing skepticism about the financial payoff of going to college, especially as some top-ranked universities are now charging close to $90,000 a year. It turns out that some people could get a bigger bang for their buck through an associate degree program.

There are 17 associate degree majors with which graduates, four years after they receive their diploma, are earning more than the typical bachelor's degree holder, according to new research from The HEA Group. Founded by Michael Itzkowitz, the former director of the Department of Education's College Scorecard, HEA provides data on college costs and other topics. 

Associate programs typically require two years, versus a four-year bachelor's degree, which cuts down on the cost of earning a diploma. And the tuition generally is also much lower to begin with. The typical two-year degree costs $3,621 per year on average, compared with an average of almost $17,000 for annual tuition at a four-year program, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 

It's worth noting that the majority of grads from the roughly 130 associate degree programs tracked by the HEA Group's research earn less than the average bachelor's degree holder, the analysis found. 

"With associate degrees, often times the major matters more than the institution itself," Itzkowitz told CBS MoneyWatch. "This shows that a college major is very important in terms of strict economic outcomes."

Four years after graduating with an associate degree, workers earn about $42,000 on average, the research found. By comparison, at the same point in their career, grads with a bachelor's degree earn about $57,000 per year.

Many of the top-earning associate programs are focused on STEM subjects, with the physical science technologies at the top of the heap. This degree helps students prepare for a number of technical jobs, such as in chemical research or radiochemistry. Nursing degrees also pay off, although nurses with bachelor's degrees earn about $76,000 annually four years after graduating — about 14% more than those with associate degrees in nursing.

Yet the highest-earning associate majors aren't always the most popular, the HEA Group analysis found. For instance, the field with the greatest number of enrolled students is liberal arts — that's despite the typical grad with an associate degree in the subject earning about $36,000 annually four years after graduation. 

Nursing, is the second-most popular associate degree, with much higher early career earnings at more than $66,000.

Of course, some associate degree programs result in much lower average salaries. Graduates with associate degrees in drama earn less than $19,000 annually four years after they graduate, making that credential the lowest-earning major among all two-year programs. 

Top-earning associate degree grads come from public and community colleges, whereas the bachelor's degree grads with the highest income are, by and large, from private universities. 

By institution, the top-earning associate degree diploma stems from Bismarck State College, a public college in North Dakota, where students who study nuclear engineering have a typical annual income of about $140,000 within four years of graduating. Grads from Onondaga Community College, a public school in New York state, with nuclear engineering associate degrees are the second-biggest earners, with an income of about $138,000 a year, the research found.

Despite the lower costs, an associate degree can still saddle people with significant student debt, according to the Education Data Initiative. Grads with two-year degrees in alternative and complementary medicine have median student debt of $38,530, the most of any associate degree program, the group found. 

That's not far off from the highest median debt for bachelor's degree holders, which stands at $42,820 for people with four-year degrees in behavioral science.