All these people who get so mad at the press for using anonymous sources should realize that sometimes it’s just the only way to get information about what the government is up to.
For example, at work I subscribe to the DoD’s email list and get a lot of transcripts emailed to me. Briefings are mostly on the record, but anonymous ones are far from rare. Some examples from the past year:
Here’s a DoD trancript of a January briefing by a “senior State Department official” on the (then-upcoming) Iraqi elections. Here’s a February briefing by another such official on a NATO briefing.
From a November briefing on Ecuador:
You’re on background as senior defense official, right?
SEN. DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Right.
An August 2004 briefing by a “senior defense official” on Rumsfeld’s trip to Afghanistan.
A July briefing by a “senior defense official” and a “senior Justice Department official” on the combatant status tribunals.
A June briefing on the NATO summit by a “senior defense official.” “Senior defense official,” June 2004, on interaction between International Red Cross and DoD.
August 2004, on America’s global presence overseas:
STAFF: It is on background, so if you’d refer to the two individuals closest to me as senior military — senior Defense officials, and of course senior military official, and on the end is our senior State Department official.
Q: Why is this on background?
STAFF: This is on background because again this is part of the process briefings that we’re trying to continue to provide for you with respect to giving you a better understanding of where the department is headed in this direction. And I think that the president made the announcement today and that’s why we’re keeping this one on background.
Q: And the gentleman in the middle? What’s your attribution today?
SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL: Senior military official.
STAFF: Okay? Very good. With that, I think we’ll go ahead and get started.
In fairness, the Clinton administration did this quite a bit as well. Here’s a November 2000 briefing by a senior defense official:
This is a background briefing on Secretary Cohen’s trip. And because it’s background, it’ll be attributable to a senior administration official, whose name is — whose name and title, for your own reference, is as follows. (Shows materials.) And I will not give you a test after showing this to you for only 15 seconds.
Q: Senior administration or Defense —
[Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Kenneth H.] Bacon: Pardon?
Q: Defense?
Bacon: You can say, “Defense official, senior Defense official.”
And with that, I’ll turn it over to the senior official.
A July 2000 briefing from a senior defense official:
Rear Adm. Quigley: Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Again, this is a background session with a senior defense official on details of the shared early warning agreement —
Q: Is that what we are trying to here?
Rear Adm. Quigley: — signed a few days ago in Moscow.
So, sir all yours.
Senior Defense Official: Mm-hmm. (In agreement.) So I am not supposed to say who I am, right?
Rear Adm. Quigley: Correct.
This cracks me up. The media supposedly has a deep distrust of the government and is working hard to ferret out the truth of what’s going on in the government, as they should. So what do they do? CONSPIRE with the government to keep sources of information SECRET so the public has no way to judge the veracity of the information.
Do you not see anything wrong with that, Derek?
Well, it’s hard to call it a conspiracy when everyone knows what’s going on …
Ben Bradlee and others have suggested that reporters simply boycott background briefings … but it’s a competitive business. It’s tough to not report information your competitor is going to have. Still, D.C. bureau chiefs have been pushing for less not-for-attribution briefings. The AP, for example, has ordered its reporters “to object each time a background-only briefing is called and ask why it cannot be on the record.”
Also, there are sometimes legitimate diplomatic reasons why U.S. officials would want to be anonymous — such as wanting to be frank with the American people, while not offending our allies.
Why doesn’t the media simply refuse to do “on background”? Make it a part of the ethics rules. If all agreed, wouldn’t it put an end to the practice?
“If all agreed” is the key phrase here. It’s really hard to organize something like that … you might get 19 organizations agreeing and the 20th getting a great scoop.
Also: are you going to do away with all “background” interviews, or just the ones by top officials? If it’s the latter, that’s a bit hypocritical. But if it’s the former, you’re really limiting your ability to get at the truth. Sometimes there are two stories: the official version, and the real version, (told to you by whistle-blowers who’d get fired if their names are made public).
I don’t cover Washington, obviously, and as a general assignment reporter I only have a very few sources, since I’m not dealing with any one institution consistently. But there are definitely times when I’m willing to grant people anonymity … for example, when talking to residents of public housing projects about drug dealers in their building. I’ve interviewed people who are willing to talk, but don’t want to give me their names, worried about reprisals. Sounds like a good reason to me.