[Mb-civic] Deep Background, Deep Controversy - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Deep Background, Deep Controversy

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 6, 2005; Page B06

Anonymous sources, always controversial, have become even more so since 
the CIA leak case, in which several reporters gave information about 
such a source -- I. Lewis Libby -- that resulted in his indictment on 
charges of obstruction of justice and perjury, and his resignation as 
Vice President Cheney's chief of staff.

Confidential sources are a staple of Post reporting, although the rules 
on how they are used have been tightened. The Post is among many 
newspapers and media outlets trying to rein in the use of anonymity, 
feeling that credibility suffers when readers don't know who sources are 
or what their agenda might be.

The McCormick Tribune Foundation and the American Society of Newspaper 
Editors held a conference on ethics in journalism last week in Chicago, 
and the use of anonymous sources was the most-discussed topic for about 
40 reporters, editors, academics and lawyers.

The thought of reporters testifying as prosecution witnesses in the 
Libby case frightened many at the conference. Lucy Dalglish, a lawyer 
and former reporter who is executive director of the Reporters Committee 
for Freedom of the Press, said, "The public must have access to truth as 
much as possible, but reporters can't become agents of government 
prosecutions or civil litigants." Most participants felt there should be 
a federal law to shield reporters from having to identify their sources; 
most states have laws offering some protection.

The Post's venerable national security reporter, Walter Pincus, was a 
strong voice for reporters who regularly use anonymous sources; he said 
that when sources "take a risk of losing their jobs or facing legal 
action" to give reporters information, "we ought to take the same kind 
of risk."

Allan M. Siegal, an assistant managing editor at the New York Times who 
has been heavily involved in the Times's revision of guidelines on using 
confidential sources, said the problems are in implementation: "We need 
to weigh ourselves against our own standard."

The Post adopted new anonymous-source guidelines in February 2004. The 
first sentence: "The Washington Post is committed to disclosing to its 
readers the sources of the information in its stories to the maximum 
possible extent." I will be happy to send anyone a copy, and the 
guidelines will be available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ . The 
Post has been criticized for not always following its guidelines, and 
that is an area for an ombudsman's scrutiny.

Two Page 1 stories last week drew reader comment and illustrate why such 
sources are used. One was Dana Priest's story on Wednesday, disclosing 
the CIA's covert prison system in Eastern Europe for suspected al Qaeda 
terrorists. She tapped domestic and international sources developed over 
nearly three years on the national security beat. Priest said none of 
her sources could have talked on the record for fear of losing their 
jobs, because much of the information is classified. Yet the story 
revealed an important and hitherto unknown aspect of counterterrorism 
efforts.

The story drew mail pro and con, though no one writing to me mentioned 
the use of anonymous sources. Some readers felt the story revealed too 
much about the CIA. Others questioned Executive Editor Len Downie's 
decision not to name the Eastern European countries where the CIA had 
secret prisons, after national security officials said that identifying 
the countries could harm counterterrorism efforts and lead to 
retaliation. Downie said he had to weigh "the importance of publishing 
the names of the countries versus the potential damage to national 
security."

The other story, on Monday, was by White House correspondent Peter Baker 
on President Bush's impending Supreme Court nomination. One sentence 
read: " 'Presidential problems aren't going to be solved overnight,' 
said a GOP strategist with ties to the White House, 'but a Supreme Court 
nomination is a big event . . . and moving forward with nominating 
someone consistent with what the president talked about in the last two 
campaigns is part of' the solution."

In an e-mail, one reader wrote, "I've always found Peter Baker to be an 
outstanding reporter -- tough, well-sourced, versatile and extremely 
hard-working. Which is why I can't understand why his A1 story . . . was 
allowed to contain . . . the paragraph. What possible reason could there 
be to grant anonymity for such a bland, glaringly obvious observation?"

I sent the e-mail to Baker, who replied: " You're right, too many of our 
stories have anonymous quotes in them and perhaps this was an instance 
when we could have done without . . . but in the secrecy-obsessed Bush 
White House . . . anyone who talks -- often those simply delivering the 
company line -- can risk being shut out, so they don't like to 
jeopardize that. But . . . you raise a good point and we need to be as 
stingy as we can be on these sorts of things."

The Washington bureaus of Cox Newspapers, the Associated Press, the Los 
Angeles Times, the New York Times, Knight-Ridder and USA Today have 
joined in fighting one bit of often-ridiculous secrecy: the regular 
briefings by top government officials who refuse to be identified by 
name. They are usually referred to as "senior administration officials."

Reporters for these organizations regularly protest the anonymous 
briefings at agencies all over Washington. White House press secretary 
Scott McClellan has put virtually all White House briefings on the 
record after meeting with the bureau chiefs in April. While Downie has 
been reluctant in the past to join any effort that could jeopardize "our 
own independence" in decision making, he said he wanted to know more 
about the effort.

As a reporter and editor, I have used anonymous sources. As an editor, I 
insisted on knowing who the sources were. And I deeply dislike anonymous 
attacks. The Post's rules say that editors must know and trust 
reporters' sources.

This is just the first column I'll write about anonymous sources. I'd 
like to hear from readers and journalists -- and public officials -- on 
this topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501191.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051106/25daabc3/attachment.htm