AT the ceremony where he announced a new drug czar this month, Vice President Joseph Biden would not take questions from reporters, but before he arrived, a press aide explained why the post was no longer a cabinet-level position. It was not necessary, the aide said, because the vice president had more than 30 years of experience in drug policy and the czar would have access to him and the president.
The young man said reporters could attribute the comment to “an administration official,” which The Times dutifully did on its Web site. Mark Leibovich, a Times reporter, said he asked the aide — who, after all, is paid to deal with the news media — “Why can’t I quote you by name? He said, ‘I’m not authorized to speak.’ I said, ‘Really?’ He said, ‘Sorry, that’s just the way we do it.’ ”
Washington, where I have reported and edited (and used my share of unnamed sources) for the better part of the last 40 years, is a city steeped in the culture of anonymity. Official spokesmen have been known to go on background — meaning they cannot be quoted by name — to say they will have no comment. Junior press assistants, political operatives, Congressional staffers, midlevel bureaucrats, military and intelligence officers, cabinet secretaries, and sometimes even presidents refuse to be identified for many reasons: all glory is supposed to go to the boss; they disagree with the boss and are afraid of getting fired; they are talking about classified information and could be prosecuted; they want to promote a policy, or kill it, by getting it out before it is officially announced; they believe the public has a right to know about something that is being suppressed.
Some, said Thom Shanker, who covers the Pentagon, just “want us to be right.” And some, said Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, know that in Washington, “speaking the plain truth can get you in trouble.”
Some anonymous sources are what Richard Stevenson, a deputy Washington bureau chief, calls “human press releases.” The Times, The Washington Post and USA Today, all citing unnamed sources, carried similar front-page stories on Friday revealing that President Obama would announce a plan to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan. But sometimes a story requires painstaking efforts to get bits of information from many sources.
Anonymous sources are necessary for some of the most important reporting The Times does from Washington, but they also cheapen the currency when they creep into stories casually. Times reporters face a daily judgment: How critical is information that sources will impart only if promised that they will not be identified? So critical that it is worth another tug at the fraying bond of trust between the news media and the public?
Times reporters and editors say they put a lot of care into the decisions. Here is how they wound up making them in three recent examples — one in which anonymous sources were vital and well-explained, one in which anonymity was a close call, and one in which anonymous quotes were removed before publication.
•
The paper’s top story last Thursday reported that operatives from Pakistan’s military intelligence agency were providing money and equipment to Taliban commanders fighting against the United States and allies in Afghanistan. The fourth paragraph said the article was based on interviews with a half-dozen American, Pakistani and other security officials who “requested anonymity because they were discussing classified and sensitive intelligence information.”
Mark Mazzetti, who wrote the article with Eric Schmitt, explained the motivations of their sources. “Several people we talked to are clearly angry that there is this ongoing relationship between the spy service of an ally and an enemy of the United States,” he said. The Pakistanis, on the other hand, wanted to explain their rationale for maintaining ties with the militants. Both sides had an agenda, Mazzetti said, but “if you talk to enough people, you can work your way to a version of the truth.”
For Times readers, it was a valuable story about a part of the world where the administration faces decisions with life-and-death consequences.
•
A recent article reported that a Republican senator was accusing Obama of undercutting protections for government whistle-blowers. The White House response, including the unremarkable quotation that Obama was “committed to whistle-blower protections,” came from an administration official who could not be identified by name or title.
Charlie Savage, the reporter, said a spokesman in the White House press office offered a brief response attributed to him by name. Instead, Savage accepted a background interview with an official who actually dealt with the policy but could not be identified by name. Savage said he argued that anonymity was not justified in this case, but the spokesman would not give, and “I decided with great reluctance to accept the deal.”
The 25-minute interview, in which Savage wrested the concession that the official could be identified as a lawyer, produced useful information about the administration’s thinking. Savage said he also learned more that will inform his reporting in the future, but he was still frustrated by the experience and protested to the press office the next day.
It was a reasonable judgment to accept the background interview, but the self-serving quotation went too far. The spokesman could have said as much — with a name behind it.
Incidentally, I talked to the spokesman, but he would not let me identify him. See how insidious this anonymity thing is?
•
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who covers the White House, wrote last week about Obama as commander in chief. The article, as published, had no anonymous sources, but she said it originally had two.
One was a “senior foreign policy adviser” who, asked whether Obama considered himself a war president, said Obama did not feel he had the luxury of choosing what would define his presidency. Stolberg said she pressed, unsuccessfully, to get the quote on the record. Her editor said the quote should come out, and she agreed — a good decision. The second source was a defense official who described differences between how Obama and former President George W. Bush decided troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq. The official would not be quoted on the record, so Stolberg found a public statement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that made the point.
Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, said he will consider leading an effort to persuade the Obama administration, while it is still new, to forswear bad habits in handling the press — like giving a roomful of reporters a background briefing by a top figure who cannot be revealed to the public. Pervasive anonymity enhances the credibility of neither the news media nor an administration that came to office promising transparency.
It would be wrong, however, to lay all of the blame with the sources. News organizations are sometimes too eager to pounce on misstatements and missteps, leaving those they cover understandably wary. Credibility runs both ways.
It may seem naïve to think that an entrenched culture in which both sides have used each other for decades can change, but a similar effort four years ago produced some temporary improvement in the Bush administration, which was much less committed to openness.
At his news conference last week, Obama said, “I’m a big believer in persistence.” So am I.
__________
Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/opinion/29pubed.html
