sources

HumAngle Media, a Pan-African publication covering conflict, humanitarian, and development issues, held an X Spaces on Saturday, May 9, to discuss ethical dilemmas surrounding financial assistance to vulnerable sources, especially for journalists reporting from conflict zones and areas affected by humanitarian crises. 

The conversation was inspired by a recent HumAngle analysis examining the issue. Ahmad Salkida, HumAngle’s Editor-in-Chief and a veteran journalist who authored the article, argued that “in theory, [journalism] is expected to observe some emotional distance from its sources and the stories they tell. However, that model is inoperable in conflict-affected regions of northern Nigeria and the Sahel.” 

The article sparked widespread debate, particularly among journalists and media educators. While some argued that reporters should remain strictly bound by professional ethics, others contended that it is difficult not to extend a helping hand, especially when the source is struggling with basic needs like food and water. 

Hauwa Shaffii Nuhu, HumAngle’s Managing Editor, who moderated the X Spaces, opened the conversation with the story of Kevin Carter, a South African journalist who died by suicide three and a half months after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. The award-winning image showed a visibly malnourished child in Sudan who collapsed to the ground while a vulture lurked in the background. 

In his suicide note, Kevin said, “I am haunted by the vivid memories … of starving or wounded children”. Hauwa noted that Kevin’s experience shows that the conversation about offering support to vulnerable sources in conflict-affected or humanitarian crisis-hit regions has serious emotional and ethical real-world consequences. 

The conversation was enriched with insights from other speakers, including Lami Sadiq, a data and investigative journalist; Daniel Ojukwu, an investigative journalist with Foundation for Investigative Journalism; and Ibrahim Adeyemi, HumAngle’s Investigations Editor. 

The speakers shared instances in which they felt compelled to offer bags of water, food, and sometimes money to people who were evidently struggling. They agreed that being a journalist does not excuse one from basic human decency and empathy.

Lami stressed that it is important to distinguish between support offered out of humanity and responsibilities carried out in a professional journalistic capacity. She emphasised that when the source outrightly demands payment at the start of an interview, journalists should not only not pay the source but also seek other sources to replace them, to maintain credibility.

“It makes everything transactional, and that affects the credibility of the journalists and the report in question,” she said. 

While it is sometimes difficult to deal with sources who are used to getting humanitarian aid in exchange for information, Lami said journalists must stand their ground and use other sources, especially if the issues to be reported are not exclusive.

Hauwa emphasised that helping vulnerable sources to understand that telling their story is in their best interest will help address issues such as financial compensation, especially when dealing with sources who can be very demanding. 

While speaking on the risks of financially supporting sources, Daniel urged journalists to be mindful of directly supporting sources, as doing so might incriminate them if the sources are later engaged or are linked to criminal networks. 

“If a source you once offered money to is later linked with criminal activity, it could look really bad on you. In Nigeria, you might even be dubbed a terrorist financier when all you are doing is your job as a journalist. We have seen this happen many times in Nigeria,” he said. 

Daniel added, “When I interact with sources or with fixers, I have to profile everyone I’m interacting with. Sometimes, I have to withdraw from sources or fixers because of the manner in which they approach matters.”

While paying for information remains unethical in principle, there are distinct instances in which journalists say they must step in to provide financial aid. 

Drawing on his field experience, Ibrahim recounted a time when he had to assist a source in taking her child to the hospital due to a medical emergency. He paid for the medical bills, and when the doctor said the child might have died if they had shown up an hour later, Ibrahim said he was glad he had helped. 

“Acting first as a human is at the core of humanitarian journalism,” Ibrahim stated. 

However, he stressed that moments requiring urgent humanitarian intervention should not blur ethical boundaries in reporting. Ibrahim further called on editors to educate reporters on the challenges they might face when dealing with sources who require monetary compensation for information. 

“They [reporters] should always look for ethical alternatives rather than compromising their standards just to get the stories,” he said. 

The speakers also urged journalists to be mindful when dealing with displaced persons or vulnerable communities, as they may exaggerate their situation to generate sympathy, believing it might lead to aid. For journalists, this makes verification especially important, even in highly emotional reporting environments.

That same need to maintain professional boundaries also came up in discussions about interviewing experts. Daniel, when asked whether experts should be paid for granting interviews, stated: “Never do so.” Instead, he stressed that building rapport with experts before they are needed helps address such issues. 

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has subpoenaed several witnesses to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington as part of its investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, three people familiar with the matter said Monday.

The subpoenas were issued in recent days and represent an effort by the Justice Department to press forward with the investigation even as a Florida-based career prosecutor who’d been helping lead the inquiry left the case after expressing doubts about the legal viability of a potential prosecution.

A former Justice Department lawyer who served as a top prosecutor in the 1980s and later supported legal efforts by President Trump to overturn his 2020 election loss has since been sworn in to serve as a special counselor to the attorney general, and is expected to work on the investigation.

The months-old Brennan investigation is one of several criminal probes the Justice Department has opened over the last year against Trump’s perceived adversaries. It centers on one of the Republican president’s chief grievances — a U.S. intelligence community finding that Russia interfered on his behalf during his successful 2016 presidential campaign.

The subpoenas were described by people with knowledge of them who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation. At least three were said to have been issued, said two of the people. CBS News earlier reported the issuance of subpoenas.

Brennan served as CIA director under President Obama and was in that role when the intelligence community in January 2017 published an assessment detailing Russian interference aimed at helping Trump defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. An investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that Russia meddled on Trump’s behalf and that his campaign welcomed the assistance, but it did not find sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy.

The Justice Department last year received a criminal referral from Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, alleging that Brennan made false statements before the panel in 2023 about the preparation of the intelligence community assessment. Brennan and his lawyers have vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

The investigation has been unfolding for months in Florida, with investigators having lined up interviews and issued subpoenas for records. The latest subpoenas seek grand jury testimony in Washington, an indication that prosecutors expect they would have to bring any criminal case in Washington since that is where Brennan’s testimony took place.

On Friday, it was revealed that a key national security prosecutor in Florida who’d been handling the investigation, Maria Medetis Long, left the case. She expressed doubts about the case and was removed, another person familiar with the matter said.

The Justice Department since then has tapped Joseph diGenova, 81, a Trump loyalist who served as the U.S. attorney in Washington for part of the 1980s, to serve as a special counselor to the attorney general. He was sworn in Monday in Florida and is expected to work on the Brennan investigation.

DiGenova supported Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. He made headlines that year when he said Chris Krebs, a top Trump administration cybersecurity official who said the election was not tainted by fraud, should be killed. DiGenova later apologized and a lawsuit filed against him by Krebs was withdrawn.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has privately discussed the possibility of firing Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and replacing her with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, three people familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.

In those conversations, Trump has discussed his ongoing frustration with Bondi over her handing of the Jeffrey Epstein files and hurdles the Justice Department has encountered in investigations into Trump’s perceived enemies, the people said. The Republican president has mentioned other candidates but has raised Zeldin’s name as recently as this week, the people said.

The people were not authorized to publicly discuss the private conversations and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.

No decision has been announced, and Trump has been known to change his mind on personnel decisions.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job,” Trump said in a statement produced by the White House.

Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, has been publicly and privately praised by Trump, who at an event in February described him as “our secret weapon.”

Bondi, a former state attorney general in Florida and a Trump loyalist who was part of his legal team during his first impeachment case, has been in her position for more than a year. She came into office pledging that she would not play politics with the Justice Department, but she quickly started investigations of Trump foes, sparking an outcry that the law enforcement agency was being wielded as a tool of revenge to advance the president’s political and personal agenda.

She has also endured months of scrutiny over the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files that made her the target of angry conservatives even with her close relationship with Trump.

Under Bondi’s leadership, the department opened investigations into a string of Trump foes, including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan.

The high-profile prosecutions of Comey and James were quickly thrown out by a judge who ruled that the prosecutor who brought the cases was illegally appointed. Other politically charged investigations have either been rejected by grand juries or failed to result in criminal charges.

Richer, Tucker, Balsamo and Price write for the Associated Press.