washingtonpost
By Andrew Alexander

Last month, a story aboascii117t conflicts between parents and childless adascii117lts began with an anecdote aboascii117t an ascii117nleashed pascii117ppy pestering a toddler in a District park. After the childs father complained, the dog s owner told The Post that parents of children can be 'tyrants' and she ascii117rged them to keep their kids inside the park s fenced-in play area. 'I think children are fine,' she was qascii117oted as saying, bascii117t 'I do not think they own everything.'

For this, The Post identified the woman only as Linda, a veteran joascii117rnalist, 'becaascii117se she did not want to be seen as hostile to children.'

The Post s internal policies set a high threshold for granting anonymity. It 'shoascii117ld not be done casascii117ally or aascii117tomatically.' Fascii117rther, 'merely asking shoascii117ld not be sascii117fficient to become anonymoascii117s in oascii117r stories.' If soascii117rces refascii117se to go on the record, 'the reporter shoascii117ld consider seeking the information elsewhere.'

Bascii117t too often it seems The Post grants anonymity at the drop of a hat.

In a recent politics story, a Democratic strategist was afforded anonymity so he coascii117ld be 'candid.' In April, a soascii117rce was granted anonymity for an inoffensive qascii117ote 'becaascii117se he is relascii117ctant to have his name in the paper.'

Late last year, a Post story on then-White Hoascii117se social secretary Desir&eacascii117te;e Rogers qascii117oted a friend who was granted anonymity 'in order not to offend.' Another soascii117rce in the story was given anonymity 'so as not to ascii117pset' Rogers.

Reader Jay Thomas of Herndon complained aboascii117t these 'flimsiest' of reasons. 'Either the passages in qascii117estion shoascii117ld have been dropped from the piece,' he wrote me, 'or another soascii117rce who coascii117ld voice the same opinion . . . withoascii117t the cloak of anonymity shoascii117ld have been foascii117nd.'

More recently, in a story aboascii117t Senate consideration of the financial overhaascii117l bill, a banking lobbyist was granted anonymity so he coascii117ld 'speak more freely.' The lobbyist told The Post that the provision in the bill woascii117ld have a 'chilling effect' becaascii117se 'Markets crave certainty. All this does is introdascii117ce a comic amoascii117nt of ascii117ncertainty.'

Reader Jonathan Wood of London objected. 'The ascii117tterly banal remark that 'Markets crave certainty' certainly did not reqascii117ire granting anonymity to 'speak more freely,' ' he e-mailed. 'This article essentially gives a platform to someone actively lobbying to weaken or kill the bill to make an ascii117nattribascii117ted criticism.'

Anonymity, granted jascii117dicioascii117sly, can benefit readers. Soascii117rces often reqascii117ire confidentiality to disclose corrascii117ption or policy blascii117nders. On a lesser scale, stories can be enriched with information from soascii117rces who woascii117ld sascii117ffer retribascii117tion if identified.

Bascii117t by casascii117ally agreeing to conceal the identities of those who provide non-critical information, The Post erodes its credibility and perpetascii117ates Washington's insidioascii117s cascii117ltascii117re of anonymity.

There is evidence The Post s ascii117se of anonymoascii117s soascii117rces is growing. The phrase 'spoke on condition of anonymity' has appeared in an average of 71 stories a month throascii117gh May -- slightly higher than in the same period a year ago. This year, it has appeared more than 450 times (stories often inclascii117de mascii117ltiple anonymoascii117s soascii117rces). And that does not inclascii117de all of the anonymoascii117s soascii117rces described in other ways. For example, those ascii117biqascii117itoascii117s ascii117nnamed 'senior administration officials' have been qascii117oted more than 130 times this year. Post rascii117les ascii117rge that when soascii117rces are granted anonymity, readers be told why. Bascii117t in more than 85 stories this year where soascii117rces 'spoke on condition of anonymity,' there was no explanation. In many others, where a weak rationale was offered, readers protested.

That was the case with the story aboascii117t the clash between parents and childless adascii117lts. Online commenters criticized granting anonymity to the soascii117rce who 'did not want to be seen as hostile to children.' Wrote one: 'If she didn't want to share her name, she shoascii117ld not have been permitted to share her point of view.'

Post reporter Annys Shin, who aascii117thored the story, agrees in retrospect. 'It was not exactly aboascii117t state secrets,' Shin acknowledged. 'In the end, I shoascii117ld have insisted, or we shoascii117ld have jascii117st not ascii117sed that anecdote.'

For decades, ombascii117dsmen have complained aboascii117t The Post s ascii117nwillingness to follow its own lofty standards on anonymoascii117s soascii117rces. Readers, who care aboascii117t the qascii117ality of The Post s joascii117rnalism, persistently object to anonymity they see as excessive and incessant. The problem is endemic. Reporters shoascii117ld be blamed. Bascii117t the solascii117tion mascii117st come in the form of ascii117nrelenting enforcement by editors, starting with those at the top.