In all but name

It’s long been thought, researched and said that a public criticism of journalism is the use, and abuse, of confidential and anonymous sources. Why, it’s legitimately asked, do news organizations expect transparency on the part of politicians and governments when they hide behind sources who won’t be revealed?

If the use of unnamed sources is a burr under the saddles of readers, then the horse must have tossed a lot of riders during the so-called fiscal cliff negotiations.

And, yes, as metaphors go, that one was especially ghastly. Mea culpa. (Latin for “The newsroom metaphor machine is on the fritz.”)

Seriously, folks, the use of unnamed sources has been criticized since Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian War way back when, and at a crucial and sensitive juncture extensively quoted Pericles but called him “a highly placed source.”

It’s a fair criticism, and it comes to mind because we’ve all carefully read the reams of copy about the fiscal-cliff negotiations. Almost every single front-page story has relied on sources that are confidential, anonymous or unnamed.

Where do these news stories come from? Our wire services—The Associated Press, McClatchy, Washington Post, Bloomberg, and the New York Times Syndicate—have used them liberally. It is possible— yea, verily—that without agreeing to let some sources remain anonymous these news organizations would have been writing news stories without actual news. Keep in mind that the competition to report on such negotiations is intense. Nobody wants to get scooped by rival news organizations.

In our newsroom, we accept that the occasional anonymous source must be used. Otherwise, some news could not be reported either well or at all. But we’re mighty careful. We like to ask questions first:

Does the source have the information on a firsthand basis? If we were to report the governor’s position on an especially hot topic, it’s best that the unnamed source is . . . the governor himself! Failing that, the source should be someone close to the governor, or at least in the room while the discussion was ongoing.

Is the source known to be reliable? Has he given us accurate information in the past? Do we have a sense of his motive? John Robert Starr, the late managing editor of this newspaper, used to grin when people raised a concern about a source’s motive. Of course this person is trying to use us, he would say. Everybody tries to use the press. So be it—if the tip or information is newsworthy, accurate and verifiable. Our first obligation is to our readers, and if this information is something readers (citizens, taxpayers, constituents) should know, make it happen.

Can we verify this information via a second confirming and public source? The Freedom of Information Act requires that mountains of state and local documents be available for public inspection and copying. Friends, you would be amazed at what’s out there to confirm the actions of people in the news.

Having said and thought all this, we still mostly avoid the use of unnamed sources. They are rarely relied on by our reporting and editing staff.

The wire services, especially working out of Washington, are a different cat. Here are some recent examples.

President Obama has agreed to curtail future cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients as part of accelerating negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner to avoid a fiscal cliff, people familiar with the talks said.

How familiar? Probably someone who quaffs brewskis with Mr. Obama. No doubt the beer would be the semi- famous home brew known as White House Honey Ale.

The people who described the talks did so on condition of anonymity, citing the secretive nature of the discussions.

Translation: Name me as the source, and no one in this office will ever speak to you again.

Obama and Boehner spoke Tuesday as they exchanged offers, according to a Republican congressional aide and an administration official, both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity about the private negotiations.

What’s reassuring is that the information was confirmed by both sides. Phew.

Talks remain deadlocked because administration negotiators have taken much different positions on how much revenue to raise and the amounts of spending cuts, said congressional aides who weren’t authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.

Translation: Name me and I get fired.

Not that politics is the only place where unnamed sources are used. While reading up on this topic, I found a news story from Bloomberg about the possibility of a merger of American Airlines and US Airways. The main sources were “people who asked not to be identified because details are private.” Not anymore.

Unnamed sources also pop up in the sports section, in the form of wire-service news, most often about the hiring of coaches or the signing of mediocre baseball players to multiyear contracts that will pay them billions and billions of dollars.

Hey, I wouldn’t want to be publicly known for those contracts, either.