Anonymous, schmanonymous. Gotta blow my own horn a bit on this one, since I posted several times last month (latest here, with links to the previous posts) on the ethics of anonymous sourcing, particularly focusing on the damage that the routine grant of anonymity does to the relationship of trust between writer and reader. Very happy to see that the Times, speaking in its corporate voice, agrees with me. Here's the stated, recently announced policy on confidential sourcing in news articles (thanks to Hellsheet for the link):

In routine interviewing — that is, most of the interviewing we do — anonymity must not be automatic or an assumed condition. In that kind of reporting, anonymity should not be offered to a source. Exceptions will occur in the reporting of highly sensitive stories, when it is we who have sought out a source who may face legal jeopardy or loss of livelihood for speaking with us. Similarly they will occur in approaches to authoritative officials in government who, as a matter of policy, do not speak for attribution. On those occasions, we may use an offer of anonymity as a wedge to make telephone contact, get an interview or learn a fact. In such a case, the reporter should press the source, after the conversation, to go on the record with the newsworthy information that has emerged.

Whenever anonymity is granted, it should be the subject of energetic negotiation to arrive at phrasing that will tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source — in particular, whether the source has firsthand knowledge of the facts.

In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole story.

I could hardly have put it better. Particularly like the bit about "energetic negotiation"—it emphasizes that anonymity is a transaction, that there's a cost borne (by writer, paper, and reader) for the "purchase" of information and that the cost should be mitigated where possible.

Hellsheet goes on to note that there's policy and then there's practice—and Elisabeth Bumiller has already managed to ditch policy in her White House [Love] Letter ("Bush Bursting with Bushy Goodness," or some such title) of just two days ago. And I'll echo Hellsheet's suggestion that you read the article (force yourself), then email Dan Okrent, the Times public editor (link's over there to the right, but it's here too if you're lazy) whether anybody's going to do anything about Bumiller's flouting the new policy. Is this the sort of thing that's only going to be honored in the breach?

posted by michael  1:22:23 PM  
tell me about it []