[Mb-civic] The Value of Anonymity - Anne Applebaum - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

The Value of Anonymity

By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; A23

Just a few days ago I spoke to a top government official who prefers to 
remain anonymous. It wasn't the first time: We've met only once or 
twice, but whenever I have a question pertaining to this official's area 
of expertise, I don't hesitate to ask his opinion.

But he doesn't want to be quoted, this top government official, because 
he works for an even more important person who wouldn't want his 
subordinate's name appearing in print, particularly when his 
subordinate's opinion runs contrary to his own. Nevertheless, I'd much 
rather talk to my anonymous source off the record than speak to his more 
important boss with tape recorders running. The latter would be harder 
to reach, probably less well-informed, and certainly more platitudinous. 
By contrast, my anonymous source will pick up the phone himself and tell 
me his version of events in great detail.

I'm fortunate, since my form of journalism -- editorializing and 
columnizing -- doesn't always require me to quote people, and I don't 
think that the words of this particular source have ever been featured 
in print. Nevertheless, thanks to Valerie Plame, a woman whose 
significance to national security has still never been fully explained, 
I've had many occasions to ponder my relationship with him in recent 
months. After all, letters quoted by The Post's ombudsman in recent days 
have included complaints that Post reporters involved in the Plame story 
seem to be "literally or figuratively in bed with their subjects," or 
that they deliberately go easy on sources. One letter writer thundered, 
"The sad fact is that Bob Woodward, and by extension The Washington 
Post, has an enormous vested interest in maintaining cozy relationships 
with the White House."

Personally, I can testify that whenever I call the White House, I'm 
invariably put through to the fourth assistant deputy undersecretary for 
press relations, who doesn't know whether the president has an 
immigration policy or not -- and if she did know, she wouldn't tell me. 
But I'm not sure that my distinctly uncozy relationship with the White 
House is a good thing, either for the government or for the reading 
public. If I had an anonymous source, say, someone who thinks about 
immigration or some other issue on behalf of the White House, and who 
would actually be prepared to talk about it off the record, I might be 
able to make a more accurate assessment, positive or negative, of what 
the president's policy might be.

I am not saying anything new about the murky Plame case here (as if that 
were possible) nor am I defending Bob Woodward, whom I've met perhaps 
three times, and whose relationship with The Post both eclipses and 
predates my own by several decades. Nor is it my intention to defend or 
attack Judy Miller, whom I've never met at all. But I do think it's time 
someone stood up and said something in favor of government officials who 
speak off the record with journalists, and of the journalists who bother 
to listen. After all, most public policy journalism doesn't involve CIA 
leaks or undercover agents. Most of it involves explaining and 
investigating the government's role in health care, economics, the 
environment, education, foreign policy and trade. If there is no casual, 
ordinary contact between journalists and government officials, and no 
level of trust, then the quality of the information available to the 
public about these issues will be extremely poor.

There is, of course, a balance to be struck: No, one doesn't want to get 
in bed, literally or figuratively, with one's sources. Yes, the world 
needs cynical journalists, aggressive journalists and friendless 
journalists, as well as journalists about whom ex-presidents write 
obituaries (as the late Hugh Sidey inspired former president Gerald Ford 
to do last week). As the story of Deep Throat itself illustrated, many 
of those who leak highly confidential information to journalists have 
deeply mixed motives. The very best journalists try to understand those 
motives and make sure they listen to other points of view as well.

Some of us will get the balance wrong -- there are bad and corrupt 
journalists, just as there are bad and corrupt members of any other 
profession -- and some of us will make mistakes. But the alternative to 
a relatively open, relatively comfortable relationship between the press 
and the government isn't exactly attractive. Earlier this week the owner 
of a Jordanian newspaper visited The Post. He described his efforts to 
open up the press in his country, to ease laws that restrict what topics 
the press is allowed to address, and to create a newspaper independent 
of government financing and influence. But ultimately, he said, the 
legal system wasn't his worst problem. Far more troubling was the fact 
that Jordanian government officials "feel no obligation" to say anything 
to the press, on or off the record, at all. In Jordan, there are no 
anonymous sources with whom members of the press are entangled, no 
lower-level officials who can help shed light on events -- and as a 
result, it's hard for the press to be relevant to politics. Is that 
really the system we'd like to adopt in this country, too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901102.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051130/e35f2235/attachment-0001.htm