However, there are a few exceptions where attribution may not be strictly necessary, but it's still best to err on the side of transparency:
1. Common Knowledge: If the information is considered widely known and easily verifiable, attribution may not be necessary. This includes things like:
* Basic facts (e.g., the Earth is round)
* Widely accepted historical events (e.g., World War II)
* Well-known statistics readily available from reputable sources (e.g., population figures from official censuses)
2. Original Observations: If the journalist is reporting their own direct observations, they don't need to attribute it to themselves. This includes things like:
* Describing the scene at a protest
* Observing the weather conditions
* Reporting on a speech they attended
3. Unattributed Sources: In extremely rare cases, a journalist may use information from a source who insists on remaining anonymous and whose identity cannot be revealed, even if the source's information is crucial to the story. This should only be done with careful consideration and strong justification, and even then, the journalist should clearly state that the information comes from an anonymous source.
Remember: Even in these cases, providing attribution is usually the best practice. It adds transparency and credibility to your reporting, and it helps readers understand where the information came from.
It's always better to be overly cautious with attribution than to risk losing the trust of your readers.