_____

When using an anonymous source in reporting on the Russia investigation, “U.S. official” or something similar, what methods does The Times employ to ensure its reporting is not advancing a potential hidden agenda of the source? What investigations are undertaken to evaluate the source’s possible motivations? And shouldn’t this back story also be included to allow readers to evaluate the trustworthiness of the information?

— Kathryn Locatell in Placerville, Calif.

Many readers raise concerns about the use of anonymous sources, and not just on stories about the Russia investigation. Anonymous sources are not ideal, and we should always try to make available as much information as possible about any motivations or rationale the sources have for remaining anonymous.

That said, stories about the Russia investigation — or any sensitive national security issue — would not be possible without the use of anonymous sources. During an ongoing federal investigation, much of it involving classified information, sources often will only speak to reporters if they are assured that their names won’t be used. We believe it’s important to get the information they have in order to write stories that get to the facts underlying all the facets of this investigation: from Russia’s attempts to disrupt the 2016 election, to the contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russians, to Mr. Trump’s efforts to undermine Mr. Mueller’s inquiry.

But this doesn’t mean we accept any information, grant anonymity and publish it. We always have to assess the motivations and potential biases of sources, and judge the information they provide against information we get from other sources. Readers need to trust that we don’t publish stories that blindly advance the agenda of anonymous people, and it’s up to us to earn that trust.

_____

If it is proved that Trump campaign officials received information from Russians and used it in the campaign, is that a crime?

— Ed Surette in Wakefield, Mass.

Not necessarily. Most legal experts say that colluding — or working together — with a foreign power during an election is not illegal in and of itself. Where campaign officials could get into trouble is if they were coordinating with Russia to do something that violates American law. If, for example, campaign officials told Russians to break into the Democratic National Committee’s servers, then the officials could be in legal jeopardy.

_____