‘ Times’ watchdog doesn’t toil in anonymity

She’s there to rein in anonymous sources

The debate over anonymous sources has been raging in journalism probably as long as there has been journalism.

Except for a handful of purists, most agree that there are instances when they are extremely valuable. Many powerful investigative pieces that have been beneficial to society wouldn’t have come to light without those ghostly creatures.

There’s also a consensus that they should be used carefully, that every effort should be made to get material on the record, that blind cheap shots have no business seeing the light of day. But in the day- to- day sausage making, there are way too many instances when confidential sources are relied on when they shouldn’t be.

Which brings us to New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan and her newly launched Anony Watch, which showcases instances when the Times relies on unnamed sources and Sullivan thinks it shouldn’t.

As public editor, Sullivan can critique the paper but doesn’t have the power to implement policy or make specific calls. But she can shine a bright spotlight in her frequent online columns.

So, why did Sullivan launch this initiative? “I started this because it’s like that joke about the weather: everyone moans about the misuse of anonymous quotes, but nobody does anything about it,” she responded via e- mail. “That is an exaggeration, of course — I think some editors do push back, and some reporters are careful. But they keep coming. It’s something that really bothers readers, and readers are whom I represent. So I thought that a more highprofile approach might make a difference.”

Sullivan stresses that she’s hardly an anti- anonymity zealot. “Some of the best and most important reporting is based on confidential sourcing,” she says. “In fact, I’d go so far as to say that most in- depth, worthwhile reporting relies on developing sources who may not be able to go on the record.”

But you’ve got to draw the line. “Anonymous quotes shouldn’t be used for wild speculation, for smearing someone, or in any unnecessary way,” she says. “And I would set a high bar for what’s deemed truly necessary to the story.”

In Anony Watch’s debut on March 18, Sullivan came down on a blind quote saying New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo “doesn’t really have friends,” and another speculating wildly on the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet agreed Sullivan was right about both.

( At USA TODAY, says Standards Editor Brent Jones, the policy is “to use the cloak of anonymity sparingly, and only when the information provided is crucial to the understanding of the story. We need to weigh value of information as much as we do credibility of the source( s) providing the information.”)

Sullivan’s next installment will be coming soon. Good for her.

There are legitimate reasons for granting anonymity, especially in cases when speaking on the record could put sources in danger or get them fired. And if you want insightful accounts of what’s really going on at intelligence agencies, at the White House, at the Supreme Court, you’re not likely to get them on the record.

But there’s little doubt unnamed sources are far less credible than named ones. There’s no reason to use them when someone is taking a shot at someone else, or speculating, or defending an institution.

A little discipline by reporters, and close scrutiny by editors, could go a long way toward creating better journalism.

Margaret Sullivan