Our policy on unnamed sources, background and deep background information

It recently was brought to my attention that Starstream Research lacked a proper editorial policy with respect to undisclosed, unnamed sources and leads. Working our way through murky waters surrounding rumor and innuendo about advanced technology, paraphysical and paranormal phenomena, and beyond, I came to realize the importance of providing a public statement for SSR and our various sources.

Starstream Research was never intended to be based around a journalistic enterprise. I originally conceived of SSR as a way to organize sources of information, and provide creative input to various contacts I had developed in the past ten years or so. The need for SSR to establish a home base on the internet followed from initial efforts to disclose information, using PR Web to distribute press release statements. SSR press release statements are often copied and cloned on numerous web sites, and the original statements often reach hundreds of thousands of readers. Contacts from various film makers, the producer of a national syndicated radio program and individuals looking for additional information, as well as input coming from various sources required SSR to establish a web site where we could provide an easily accessed information center.

In developing the web site, I often decided to put raw material ahead of functionality and press forward in spite of glaringly obvious deficiencies in production value. Our research is first and foremost the primary goal and SSR product follows as a means of disseminating some of our results. In addition to providing stories, we recently introduced a forum to allow visitors to our web site to express their opinions and interact with each other. Our addition of Caryn Anscomb as contributing writer has provided a badly needed additional point of view.

The Starstream Research web site evolved into an internet destination for stories provided by sources that often prefer to remain unnamed.  Various reasons are given, usually related to their present or past work for the government. The need for a policy statement regarding sources is well overdue. I recently discussed the need for 'deep background' with a source that I shall refer to as 'deep thought' (with all due respect to the late Douglas Adams, author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.")

In the past SSR reporting has been operating in 'rogue' mode.

(I use this definition: "Operating outside normal or desirable controls.")

I thought it might be wise to review the accepted working definition of "deep background." As there are some disagreements about the meaning of deep background, I consulted the Washington Post "Policies on Sources, Quotations, Attribution, and Datelines."

The most celebrated deep background of the past fifty years was 'deep throat,' Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward's source during the Watergate investigation. Washington Post policy guidelines describe deep background as information that, "...can be included in the story, but not attributed. That means there is no way to help readers understand where it is coming from, which is why we discourage the use of deep background."

The primary use of deep background information is to direct the investigation to other sources that are able to confirm the developing storyline.

Ultimately the SSR information base must be developed from 'official' government and private sector documentation. This, for example, is why we rely heavily on CIA released STAR GATE files as basis for further investigation. To address issues that are more speculative, but important, I created "The Psi Spy" series. The information and feedback we receive on background and deep background are an essential part of this series.