Our sources for this story have been granted anonymity on account of they don't wanna be identified

by Ken

This is a story I've been waiting for for ages. I'm sure something like it gets written periodically, and from it I've learned that since 2011 there has been at least one whole book on the subject -- namely all those anonymous sources in newspaper reporting, or more particularly the, er, "explanations" that are now offered for the decision to grant anonymity.

The piece in question, by the Washington Post's Paul Farhi, is "Anonymous sources are increasing in news stories, along with rather curious explanations." It begins:

According to sources who didn't insist on anonymity, more and more sources are speaking to the news media on the condition of anonymity for the oddest of reasons.

Politico, for example, reported a speech by Vice President Biden to a progressive group based on the account of a person who spoke anonymously "because the [speech was] by-invitation only."

The New York Times said one of its sources for an article about Syria asked not to be identified "because of the delicacy of the situation." The Times accorded anonymity to sources for the same reason -- "because of the delicacy of the situation" -- in six other articles this year, including one about a woman who fell off a balcony.

The Washington Post, in an article Saturday about the Redskins' troubles, cited such mysterious sources as "several people familiar with the situation"; "multiple people close to the matter"; "several people with knowledge of the deliberations"; and "one person with ties to the team." The sources, according to the article, spoke anonymously "because of the sensitivity of the situation."

Yes! I love it! The speech was "by-invitation only"! "Because of the delicacy of the situation"! "Because of the sensitivity of the situation"! But of course!

Some other excellent reasons for granting anonymity, which Paul has gathered, noting that "search of the Nexis database turns up thousands of news stories each month in which people speak on 'the condition of anonymity, for all kinds of reasons, or would-be reasons" (links onsite):

■ The Boston Globe quoted a "Democratic operative" who praised the organizing abilities of a local labor union without being identified by name "because he did not want to offend other unions."

● The Post wrote about a dinner meeting in Richmond between Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and Virginia Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe (D), citing people who spoke anonymously "in order to discuss a private event."

■ The Los Angeles Times reported on a business deal, citing a person "familiar" with the companies involved who was quoted without being named in order "to preserve a relationship with both companies."

Better and better!!!

Paul asks the excellent question of whether these so-called explanations help much.

It used to be that anonymous sources -- Watergate's "Deep Throat" was the most famous -- spoke on the condition of anonymity because . . . well, because they wouldn't speak to reporters any other way. Back then, anonymous sources were just "sources" and you, dear reader, had to take our word for whoever they were and whatever we said they said.

Readers noticed, and apparently didn't like guessing about who was saying what. In 2004, the New York Times surveyed its subscribers on their concerns about the paper. In the wake of flawed (and often anonymously sourced) reporting before the start of the Iraq war, readers said their biggest gripe was the use of anonymous sources, and that it trumped political bias or even delivery problems, according to Margaret Sullivan, the paper's current public editor. [The link is to an excellent October 12 "Public Editor" piece, "The Disconnect on Anonymous Sources." -- Ed.]

So, in an attempt at greater transparency, news organizations began explaining why their sources weren't being identified by name. The idea was to offer readers a little peek under the veil of anonymity.

The practice is now widely employed. . . .

"Frankly, this kind of sourcing is ridiculous," journalist and former NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard tells Paul.

I get it that [news organizations] are trying to be transparent, but it doesn't enhance the believability of the anonymous quote. The only thing worthwhile about the convoluted sourcing explainers is how funny they are.

Paul paraphrases Matt Carlson, an associate professor at St. Louis University, the author of the 2011 aforementioned book, On Condition of Anonymity: Unnamed Sources and the Battle for Journalism, to the effect that "such descriptions can do more harm than good -- rather than enhancing a reader's understanding, the descriptions used by reporters can be disingenuous and misleading about a source's affiliation or motives" (again, this is the reporter's paraphrase).

He cites the classic misdirection case: Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller once agreed to identify one of her anonymous sources, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, not as a senior White House official but as "a former congressional staffer," a technically accurate but wholly misleading description.

Of course there are legitimate reasons why sources may need the protection of anonymity, and I think we can imagine those. Paul offers the case of whistleblowers who fear losing their jobs -- or "in dangerous areas" worse. He offers the Los Angeles case of "a resident of a gang-infested Southern California neighborhood" given anonymity by the L.A. Times because of "fear of retaliation."

But many journalists resort to boilerplate formulations to describe their anonymous sourcing, Smith says. Among the typical constructions: saying a person wasn't "authorized" to speak on the record, or was granted anonymity because the news hasn't been "formally announced yet." Says Smith: "We just seem to take any excuse [sources] toss out. . . . It's awarded summarily for just about any reason."

One common bit of journalistic shorthand might be unintentionally revealing. The New York Times recently quoted a movie-studio executive who commented on another studio without being identified so "he could speak candidly." Which raises another question: If anonymous sources are the ones speaking candidly, what are named sources doing?

Paul goes on to note "the obvious benefit of anonymous sourcing," that "it often elicits more, and more truthful, information than the on-the-record kind," especially at a time when, as Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron notes, "Many companies, government agencies, and institutions of every type do their best to make sure people with knowledge won't speak publicly."

They apply pressure and, at worst, fire people. At other times, people who speak openly can suffer recrimination. Or they are bound by policies that prohibit use of their name. As unpleasant as anonymity may be, very often the alternative is no information whatsoever. Reporters are encouraged to negotiate to identify people as much as possible and to provide honest reasons for their anonymity. But there can be practical limits on what we can say.

The problem is that just as sources may speak more freely and completely when they're allowed to speak anonymously, they may also free to speak dishonestly or misleadingly. Still, however we may feel about it, anonymous sourcing isn't about to vanish from the journalistic toolkit, if only for the obvious reason of competitive pressure. Paul concludes with a cautionary tale from a long-ago time.

Back in its pre-"Deep Throat" days, The Post tried an experiment. Faced with the Nixon administration's manipulative use of off-the-record sourcing, then-executive editor Benjamin C. Bradlee announced a no-more-unnamed-sources policy, banning any story based on one, according to Ben Bagdikian, at the time an assistant managing editor at the paper.

As a result, Bagdikian wrote, "The Post's competitors, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, published important news stories that The Post did not have. The paper's readers were deprived of significant information. For a fierce competitor like Bradlee, that was intolerable."

And so the experiment was dropped -- after two days.

THE 16 MOST UNIMPEACHABLE REASONS
FOR GRANTING A SOURCE ANONYMITY

■ because "Anonymity" is his/her middle name

■ because "them guys'll kill me in a heartbeat"

■ because it seems the right thing to do

■ because "youse guys owe me one"

■ because the early bird catches the worm

■ because the moon is in a dangerous phase

■ because he/she has a loan application pending

■ because you can catch more flies with vinegar than you can with honey, or is it the other way 'round, or wait, is it flypaper?

■ because who gives a rat's behind?

■ because he/she didn't want "certain people" to wonder how he/she knew this stuff

■ because his/her spouse/mother/kids/business partner would never let him hear the end of it

■ because his/her therapist/astrologer/life coach advised against his/her being quoted by name

■ because you know what them people does to rats?

■ because otherwise he/she would just have to make up a story

■ because the dog ate his homework

■ on account of what's it to ya?

#