The Public Editor
Anonymity: Who Deserves It?
By BYRON CALAME
Published: November 20, 2005
....Acting on recommendations from the independent committee created in the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco, the paper announced a revamped policy for the use of confidential news sources in February 2004. One major change: Before a confidential source makes it into the paper, at least one editor has to know the source's name.
After an internal committee on credibility came up with more recommendations early this year, Bill Keller, the executive editor, further tightened the guidelines for the use of anonymous sources in June. The most notable change, at least for me: Readers are to be told why The Times believes a source is entitled to anonymity - a switch from the previous practice of stating why the source asked for it....(I)t seems like a good time to assess the state of confidential sourcing at the paper.
There clearly is work to be done. A Page 1 article just three days ago, for instance, offered no explanation for attributing to "a senior administration official" the assurance that President Bush and two other White House officials hadn't told Bob Woodward about Valerie Plame Wilson. Mr. Woodward had disclosed earlier in the week that a current or former Bush administration official had told him Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A....While many sources have long sought anonymity to disparage an opponent or enemy, the current White House can be found praising the president's decision-making anonymously. In a July 6 Times article about the year's first Supreme Court vacancy, "a senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity because most staff members are not authorized to speak about the vacancy" said that "at the end of the day, the president is going to decide this based on those principles, not from any pressure from the groups."
"What possible reason related to news can justify running this quote?" Jay Ackroyd of New York asked me in an e-mail message. "It's just spin." It also makes me feel uneasy. Puffery with the protection of anonymity can be used in pursuit of ends as devious as those sought through unattributed negative comments.
But there are explanations for granting anonymity that serve readers by making a fairly candid case. An Oct. 29 article out of Washington, the mother church of confidential sourcing, delved into whether a letter from two Democratic senators that was seen as signaling opposition to certain possible nominees to the Supreme Court would also apply to Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. The article continued: "Three Democratic aides, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals from their bosses, said they believed the same would apply to Judge Alito."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/opinion/20publiceditor.html?hp
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
