Nobody here but us chickens. Commenter mf had a problem with my Wednesday post about Steven R. Weisman's all-anonymous article on prospects for U.N. involvement in the Iraq sovereignty handoff:

I don't get it. Isn't it the case that the level of anonymity of the source is determined by the source? I.e., that Weisman doesn't reveal because he cannot? How can we fault him for that?

I'd have responded in the comments, but the point seems important enough to be made here, especially since I may not have communicated it sufficiently well in the previous post. It's not the case that I'm faulting Weisman simply for using anonymous sources. My gripe is with his article's virtually exclusive reliance on anonymous sources, and even more with Weisman's blanket unwillingness to provide any middle ground of identifying context. A skilled journalist ought to be able to give effective cover to his sources while at the same time allowing his reader some measure of insight into what their institutional or policy allegiances might be.

Yes, a source can require anonymity, but that doesn't mean that a reporter has to accept the deal willy-nilly. The use of anonymity is a choice, and it imposes a cost. The more a story tips toward anonymous sourcing, and the more complete the anonymity afforded, the more difficult it is for readers to judge the reliability and worth of the information the story offers, the more readers have to presume on the mere integrity of the writer. Fully anonymous attribution isn't something that should get handed out like free passes to the Tilt-a-Whirl. Anonymity justifies its cost when it's the only way for a reporter to secure information that's required to advance a story, and when the person providing the information would suffer some sort of harm from being identified.

A reporter owes his readers at least some minimal justification for a reliance on anonymous sources. Look again at the article in question, and ask yourself about the quality of the information that emerges from behind Weisman's "some officials" scrim. Is it, in fact, valuable enough for him to have offered complete anonymity in exchange? Is there any reason even to believe that these sources have a material need for the cloak of invisibility? No, and no. Like most of the official Washington press corps, Weisman distributes anonymity as a favor, as a calling card, letting his sources play their behind-the-scenes games on the front page, and playing the game right along with them. If the interests of his readers aren't served in the transaction, well, they're not in the game, are they, so why should Weisman care?

This isn't anonymous sourcing to further the public's right to know. This is anonymous sourcing as a courtier's practice, and it's corrupt.

posted by michael  11:09:14 AM  
tell me about it []