After the NY Times got itself into a pile of trouble for relying on anonymous sources that turned out to be catastrophically unreliable, it revised its guidelines on when it would and would not grant sources anonymity. Whether it has rigorously adhered to that policy is a topic for another thread; here, though, are some excerpts from what it says the policy is supposed to be.
We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available….
We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is….
We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.
All sounds pretty reasonable. (NB: I’m not aware that the Globe has a public policy on anonymous sources; one would think, though, that it would want to adhere fairly closely to what its parent company does.) Now, consider this gem from a front-page article in today’s Globe:
“The most important part of a new administration is the first six to nine months,” said an aide to a former Massachusetts governor. “You want people to develop a positive view of the administration,” said the former aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Right now, they have a negative view.” The former aide said people would probably feel sympathy for Patrick, but even so, if Diane Patrick’s condition is serious, “then it’s going to be a distraction for him at a very bad time.”
What possible justification is there for granting anonymity to “an aide to a former Massachusetts governor” so that this “aide” can go on the attack against Deval Patrick? Answer: obviously, there is none. This unnamed “aide” is just too much of a coward to go on record with his or her comments. If Eric Fehrnstrom or whoever the hell made these comments wants to issue statements like that, that’s fine, but why on earth would the Globe grant such a person anonymity?
Furthermore, the Globe doesn’t even do us the favor of telling us which party said “former Massachusetts Governor” belongs to. It would be useful to know whether we’re talking about a Romney or Welducci aide, or whether it’s a disgruntled Dukakoid. Absent that information, the natural interpretation is that the aide is a Republican, and that anonymity is being used here “as a cover for personal or partisan attack” (to quote the NYT policy).
This is one for the ombudsman. Let ’em hear it.
shawn-a says
Is there more attributed to the source than what you quoted here?
<
p>
Looks to me like a couple simple facts, with no negative connotation.
<
p>
And if he/she said who he was, a bunch of people would probably twist the discussion into “he doesn’t care for a sick woman” from the point he was making that the image of Patrick is poor right now.
<
p>
He was just speaking to strategy and being image-conscious.
<
p>
Why is there outrage here?
david says
The premise for responsible reporting should be that sources are not quoted unless they are willing to be identified. Thus, anonymity should not be granted unless there’s a really good reason for doing so.
<
p>
Here, there’s not only no good reason, there’s no reason whatsoever. The Globe didn’t even offer a reason.
peter-porcupine says
David, no offense, but welcome to my world. this has been the Glob’s policy for decades.
centralmassdad says
I think there is a difference between facts based on reports from anonymous sources (DP makes inappropriate and offensive remarks! The quoted price for the drapes was only for the fringe, the actual fabric costs 10x as much) and opinions such as the above.
<
p>
This is particularly true when, as in this particular instance, the opinion is of the screamingly obvious variety.
<
p>
You don’t have to have a hidden agenda to notice that, 10 weeks in, so far it hasn’t been going as well as might have been hoped.
david says
why be afraid to go on record saying so?
centralmassdad says
Maybe it is obvious to everyone but Deval Patrick, or maybe he doesn’t respond well to constructive criticism from subordinates.
raj says
…Sources are rarely if ever anonymous. They are known to somebody–the reporter. If one trusts the reporting by the reporter, the anonymity of the source is pretty much irrelevant.
<
p>
The problem has become that reportage in the media has become so haphazard that it is virtually impossible to trust the reporter. It is the trust in the reporter that is the issue, not the anonymity of the source.
<
p>
If Woodward and Bernstein had not been willing to keep Mark Felt’s name anonymous, the Watergate scandal would never have come to light. But, they were shown to have done accurate reporting, and it was their credibility that was in issue, not Felt’s.
shawn-a says
Because when Felt came forward last year (or the year before?) the point was made that the whole Watergate thing was not about two reporters digging out a story, but about the FBI not doing its job and trying to get the press to do it for them.
<
p>
Woodward and Bernstein ultimately looked like puppets.
<
p>
Either way, Nixon went down (as he should)
raj says
…when Felt outted himself as having been Deep Throat, and when it became clear why he was Deep Throat, I ROTF laughing. It was clear.
<
p>
He was like the maiden scorned. He was passed over to become head of the FBI by the Nixon administration, and he was going to get his revenge. Felt did, in spades.
<
p>
Do unto others, as they say. And he did.
noternie says
I don’t see the negative, partisan attack here. Only a very small percentage of the population would disagree that there is a negative view of the Governor. (The argument seems to be who’s fault it is.)
<
p>
Why not give the name, you ask? It might distract from the point being made. If Ferhnstrom or a Welduccii person says anything, it’s going to be taken as an attack. But what if it’s from someone out of Kennedy’s office or Kerry’s office or if it’s a prominent Dem politico? The same statement from someone like that is just a friendly piece of advice?
<
p>
I think it’s ok annonymous because it takes that bickering off the table. I think it was used and should be taken as an opinion from someone who’s actually lived through it from the inside, unlike us.
<
p>
The danger in using annonymous sources is when they are giving facts that are then reported as such, without sufficient backup.
<
p>
But if someone can make a valid case for their opinion, what difference does their identity make?
david says
Speak for yourself. There’s no shortage of BMG contributors, including an editor, who have worked under one MA Governor or another.
<
p>
And if you’re right that anonymity doesn’t matter when it comes to opinion, do you disagree with the NYT’s policy?
<
p>
Furthermore, any notion that former Gov aides might be unwilling to go on record about the current Gov is demonstrably false. Jane Swift’s press guy talked to the Herald on Sunday. IMHO, informing the readers of the source of comments like his, and like those in today’s Globe, is a matter of simple respect to the readers. It allows us to evaluate what we’re hearing, bearing in mind any partisan taint that the speaker might be carrying.
noternie says
A thousand apologies. I should have said …”unlike me–and I suspect most on this board.” I’ll strive to do better.
<
p>
I’m not sure this runs afoul of the NYT policy.
<
p>
I think leaving this one annonymous allows it to be taken without partisan bias from the reader. It’s insight from an experienced insider. And frankly, it doesn’t seem all that big a deal.
ryepower12 says
knowing about any partisan bias is important? I guess some people are perfectly willing for the Boston Globe and media in general to decide what is and isn’t important for the public to know. Quite frankly, I disagree profusely.
<
p>
To paraphrase from Natalie Portman, ‘so this is how Democracy dies, to thunderous applause.’
noternie says
We’re talking about what it’s like to work in the Governor’s office. It’s not about a nefarious plot by a Sith Lord manipulating the Trade Federation to reorganize the Republic into an Empire.
<
p>
Democracy is not at risk. Democrats aren’t even at risk. There is no vast conspiracy to take down Deval Patrick’s administration being orchestrated by the MSM and the few remaining Republicans. (Who are so widespread and dangerous they can’t get themselves elected dogcatcher in this state.)
<
p>
This story is not the top of a very slippery slope that will cost us our right to Sixth Amendment Rights to face our accusers.
<
p>
General Greivous is dead. Dooku is dead. And Padme’s twins saved us a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
ryepower12 says
not today. The media’s sad state, which this blog is illustrative of, is representative of a decaying democracy. It needs to be cured, not encouraged.
peter-porcupine says
David – your own use of the phrase ‘partisan taint’ demonstrates why anonymity was granted.
<
p>
It has been my experience that both parties and all ideologies experience certain phenomena attached to being ‘in the building’ in the same way. Regardless of other ideas. The frenzy around budget week. The release of committee assignments. The scheduling of the three committees simultaneously that you sit on, along with a Formal Session. An announced Formal Session, where you drag up to Boston only to discover that the varied Powers that Be have decided not to take a vote, but you hang around all day anyway on the off chance they change their minds.
<
p>
These are operational, not partisan, events. There are such issues in every Governor’s office, unrelated to party or ideology. The strife with A&F. The missed citation in External Relations. The phone call that got sent to the wrong staffer. Operational issues seem to be Deval’s weakest point, and it seems to be because he had an idea of how government worked based on being an appointee, rather than an elected official – which is very different. I’ve said before – Romney had just as steep a learning curve, but it was better hidden because he had grown up in a political family, and ‘spoke the language’ to a certain extent. He also did not seem to expect the adulation of the campaign to be never-ending.
<
p>
Not long ago, you titled a diary ‘And the Dime Dropping Never Stops!’. That is a HUGE operational problem. The Republicans aren’t dropping these dimes, for the simple reason that they don’t have access. So – if they caught Paul Cellucci on a day off, and he talked about the first six months, would his observances be immaterial because they were from the other party? [I have no knowledge – pause while applause and catcalls which greet this statement die down]. Or Duke may have chimed in, but didn’t want his name attached because he wasn’t speaking as an attack, but out of concern.
<
p>
And – they might both have been afraid of your wrath, after talking to poor John Carroll.
<
p>
Point is – was the observation germane? It seems it was.
noternie says
That was exactly the point that I was trying to make.
steverino says
<
p>
I am perfectly capable of judging for myself the materiality of his observations from his party affiliation. It’s not up to the Globe to hide it to me.
<
p>
Also, thirty years ago conservative critiques of government centered around the doctrine of unintended consequences; now they’ve forgotten it (along with many other things, of course).
<
p>
In this matter, anonymity has a very negative unintended consequence indeed:
<
p>
If you decide to publish attacks while allowing the critics’ agendas to remain hidden, your publication will become a magnet for critics with hidden agendas.
<
p>
ryepower12 says
If the quote was so germaine as to make the story, I’d agree. However, it wasn’t. Anonymous sources should only be used when it more or less makes or breaks the story – this was such a valuable comment it was buried in the article. Furthermore, while I can’t speak for David, this particular case isn’t the most offensive one I’ve seen… it was just an absurdly unnecessary quote considering the price of anonymity. There’s a systemic problem in the media using these sources and the only way it can be cured is if we stop letting these kinds of things slip by on the little and not-all-that offensive stories.
steverino says
“some say,” which the network uses to introduce completely made-up fiction.
ryepower12 says
I’m soooo mad. I just spent an hour penning this, when I could have just linked to you.
<
p>
However, my blog on anonymous sources did include an added spin: I took the Herald to task too (they gave bitter beacon hill hacks a soapbox instead of giving them to former – almost assuredly Republican – administration aides).
peter-porcupine says
Methinks she’s talking to the dime-dropper, which is why it is anonymous.
diggity says
I’m not concerned as much about the anonymous source used by the Globe as I am by the article posted by Lisa Wangsness and Sean Murphy on 3/11/07 http://www.boston.co…
<
p>
They seem to take liberties with:
<
p>
“The governor and his wife appear extremely close.”
<
p>
I thought this was odd, standing alone in the middle of the article.
<
p>
I take more exception to this statement than I do to the anonymous source used in later articles. I’m not sure what their reasoning was for adding this, and it is far from objective reporting. They have no idea what the Gov’s relationship is with his wife, and using the ‘appears’ is completely speculative. I’m surprised the editor didn’t question them on what the FACTS were to back up this statement.
<
p>
As far as using the anonymous source…look, the Administration put a tight lid on this one earlier on, and released the info, rather than having it uncovered by the media or reported on a blog. Its called control. They released this info on a weekend, notoriously known to all familiar with a ‘news cycle’ as the dead time. And throughout the weekend they released statements that were pretty well structured. Using an anonymous source, especially one that has been inside an administration…is fair, and I can understand why the source wanted to remain private. The sources comments were more about the inside workings of the office, and identifying the source would have slanted the readers one way or the other. Its not mportant what party the source belongs to, but that the information they could provide was valuable to the story. And IMHO, it was.
<
p>
That being said, I wish the Governor and his wife the best at this difficult time.