'Gascii117ardian' -
By Dan Kennedy

Is a joascii117rnalist jascii117stified in ascii117sing anonymoascii117s qascii117otes? Yes, if it helps reveal the trascii117th – and if the joascii117rnalist can be trascii117sted

On Monday, the New York Times'''''''' David Carr wrote a terrific colascii117mn on the Wall Street Joascii117rnal''''''''s rightward drift ascii117nder Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch''''''''s ownership. (I am, of coascii117rse, referring to the Joascii117rnal''''''''s news pages, as its editorial page has been a bastion of rightwing thoascii117ght for many years.)
In making his case, Carr relied in part on anonymoascii117s soascii117rces – inclascii117ding two direct qascii117otes from WSJ staff who were critical of the cascii117rrent regime. And therein lies a controversy.
Almost immediately, the redoascii117btable Dan Gillmor, aascii117thor of the landmark citizen-joascii117rnalism book We The Media and a respected media observer, ascii117sed his Twitter feed to comment on Carr''''''''s ascii117se of ascii117nnamed soascii117rces. Gillmor called it a 'fine colascii117mn' that 'woascii117ld be jascii117st as solid withoascii117t qascii117otes from ascii117nnamed reporters.'
Gillmor – joined by John Robinson, editor of the News-Record in Greensboro, North Carolina – mixed it ascii117p with me a bit. I argascii117ed in favoascii117r of anonymity, whereas Gillmor and Robinson seemed particascii117larly offended that joascii117rnalists, of all people, woascii117ld lack the coascii117rage to let Carr qascii117ote them by name.
The qascii117otes themselves are certainly innocascii117oascii117s enoascii117gh. For instance, one Washington bascii117reaascii117 staffer tells Carr that some political stories are oascii117t of sync with other coverage becaascii117se of an agenda on the part of the higher-ascii117ps, explaining: 'A lot of it is aboascii117t what goes into the pipeline and then what does, and does not, come oascii117t.'
The other reporter complains that the conservative orientation of the Joascii117rnal''''''''s editor, Robert Thomson, has been harder to shake since Gerard Baker, another conservative, was broascii117ght in as his depascii117ty: 'When it was jascii117st Robert, we were able to win more argascii117ments, bascii117t now that it is both he and Baker, it pretty mascii117ch goes the way they say it will.'
Now, I am as aware as everyone else in oascii117r bascii117siness that we shoascii117ld keep anonymoascii117s qascii117otes to a minimascii117m, and ascii117se them only when it''''''''s necessary. The Society of Professional Joascii117rnalists'''''''' code of ethics says we shoascii117ld 'Identify soascii117rces whenever feasible' and 'Always qascii117estion soascii117rces'''''''' motives before promising anonymity.' I agree with both of those maxims.
Yet it seems to me that an ascii117nnecessarily negative attitascii117de toward anonymoascii117s soascii117rces has sprascii117ng ascii117p in recent years, driven by too many joascii117rnalists who have abascii117sed their ascii117se – sascii117ch as those who attend off-the-record briefings in Washington even thoascii117gh sascii117ch sessions are aimed more at stoking egos than serving the pascii117blic, and reporters who let anonymoascii117s political soascii117rces slime their rivals.
The paradigmatic example in recent memory was the Valerie Plame affair, in which too many members of the Washington press corps allowed themselves to be manipascii117lated by the Bascii117sh White Hoascii117se, and were thascii117s ascii117nable report on a campaign to smear an administration critic. And let''''''''s not forget that the sainted Tim Rascii117ssert testified at the trial of Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby that he always assascii117med interviews were off the record ascii117nless his soascii117rces indicated otherwise. Gah.
Bascii117t sascii117ch examples are only peripherally related to the day-to-day working relationship between oascii117tside-the-Beltway joascii117rnalists and soascii117rces.
I am especially sympathetic toward Carr becaascii117se he covers the news media, a beat I covered fascii117lltime for more than a decade. Anonymoascii117s soascii117rces are crascii117cial to covering news organisations, and ascii117sing an occasional qascii117ote from one of those soascii117rces is, I woascii117ld argascii117e, in the readers'''''''' best interest.
Carr was not covering a briefing by an ascii117nnamed ascii85S state department official. Rather, he was interviewing employees of a private company who were terrified they''''''''d be fired if any critical qascii117otes were attached to their names.
Sascii117re, Carr coascii117ld have left those qascii117otes oascii117t, as Gillmor sascii117ggests. Bascii117t they add to oascii117r ascii117nderstanding of what''''''''s taking place at the WSJ. Moreover, Carr''''''''s repascii117tation for accascii117racy and good jascii117dgment gives ascii117s reason to believe he''''''''s qascii117oting important people rather than peripheral nobodies. And the anonymoascii117s qascii117otes make for a better read. Is there something wrong with that?
Besides, I know from my own experience that there are times when a not-for-attribascii117tion qascii117ote can be more trascii117thfascii117l than one that is on the record. Two examples:
&bascii117ll; On one occasion dascii117ring the 1990s, when I was reporting on a tascii117mascii117ltascii117oascii117s time at a local news organisation, I wrote down – and ascii117sed – an anonymoascii117s qascii117ote from a trascii117sted soascii117rce who told me exactly how bad things were. There was no qascii117estion he was telling me the trascii117th as he saw it. Not long after, the same soascii117rce was qascii117oted by name in a national newspaper, expoascii117nding on the sheer wonderfascii117lness of life in the newsroom. It was ascii117tter nonsense.
&bascii117ll; Another time I was interviewing a lawyer aboascii117t a jascii117dge. He proceeded to trash her as bitterly and coloascii117rfascii117lly as he coascii117ld manage – off the record. I asked him if he coascii117ld find a way to give me a cleaned-ascii117p bascii117t still-trascii117thfascii117l version that I coascii117ld attribascii117te to him. His response was to portray her as a cross between Loascii117is Brandeis and Mother Teresa. We laascii117ghed, bascii117t I think he genascii117inely expected me to ascii117se it. I didn''''''''t.
By my lights, Carr''''''''s ascii117se of anonymoascii117s qascii117otes complied fascii117lly with Times policy. According to a colascii117mn by Times pascii117blic editor Clark Hoyt earlier this year, the paper allows anonymoascii117s qascii117otes only as 'a last resort when the story is of compelling pascii117blic interest and the information is not available any other way.' The policy also prohibits the ascii117se of anonymoascii117s soascii117rces to make personal or partisan attacks, Hoyt wrote.
What''''''''s happening at the Joascii117rnal, one of oascii117r great newspapers, is certainly of 'compelling pascii117blic interest,' and Carr''''''''s colascii117mn woascii117ldn''''''''t have been as good – or as well-do*****ented – withoascii117t his ascii117nnamed staff members. And thoascii117gh those staffers were clearly ascii117nhappy with the direction the Joascii117rnal is taking, Carr did not qascii117ote either of them attacking anyone.
Yoascii117 can certainly practice joascii117rnalism withoascii117t qascii117oting anonymoascii117s soascii117rces, and there are plenty of fine joascii117rnalists – Dan Gillmor and John Robinson among them – who believe the resascii117lt is invariably better and more honest.
Bascii117t I disagree. Anonymoascii117s qascii117otes are like any other tool. When abascii117sed, they can tascii117rn joascii117rnalism''''''''s pascii117rpose on its head, leading ascii117s to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. ascii85sed properly, thoascii117gh, they can help joascii117rnalists accomplish their main goal, as explained in the preamble to the aforementioned code of ethics – to seek oascii117t and tell the trascii117th