Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Inside the Beltway
As the standards on unnamed sources diminish, it leads
to unprecedented — and dangerous — use of these sources; much of what is
quoted could easily be attributed
Anonymous sources always have been a part of modern investigative reporting.
But in the 35 years I have been in Washington, the reliance on these sources
has grown dramatically, beginning with the 1972 break-in at the Democratic
National Headquarters in the Watergate.
Watergate was from beginning to end primarily a leak story with the
leaks coming from official Washington, frequently those agencies charged
with uncovering the cover-up — the FBI, the Justice Department, and, of
course, the CIA, which actually had “a dog in the hunt.” To have identified
them would have been a disaster.
While some reporters tried to justify this sometimes scary handling
of information by claiming that everything was backed up by two sources,
most of us were darn glad to have one.
This loosening of the rules about unidentified sources, however, has
led us into some terribly unfair, if not dangerous, practices. We happened
to be right in much of what we reported out of Watergate, but that always
hasn’t been the case of late.
A recent story about Republican strategy on the Clinton impeachment
inquiry in The Washington Post by a respected political reporter Dan Balz
included nine unattributed direct quotes.
Several days ago, The New York Times’ Todd Purdum quoted an unidentified
“White House aide” who was critical of his boss — something to the effect
that he could not trust him.
This sudden proclivity for so-called “blind quotes,” while somewhat
understandable in the highly competitive atmosphere of the latest Washington
scandal, is threatening to further undermine what little credibility the
media has left.
Sadly, much of what is being quoted anonymously is innocuous and could
just as easily have been attributed. But all too often now, “one congressional
aide” or “one Democratic strategist” or one “Republican lawmaker” is being
afforded the opportunity to criticize or castigate from the safety of anonymity.
There certainly are occasions during the coverage of such volatile events
when the use of unidentified sources is absolutely necessary. Without such
sources, the Watergate truth would not have been disclosed. But there can
be no excuse for the use of unattributed direct quotes even when those
being quoted are merely laying out their strategy or predicting some development.
The impression left, right or wrong, is that the reporter made up the
quote to back up his point and merely attributed it to a “Republican with
close ties to Capitol Hill” or some other vague observation.
Another recent example: “The speaker (Newt Gingrich) has got to learn
to lay low and recognize that (the impeachment inquiry) is so charged that,
even when he utters something as an aside, it reverberates across the country,”
said a Republican with close ties to Capitol Hill.
In this case, I have no doubt that the source of the quote was legitimate.
The reporter, Dan Balz of The Washington Post has a fine reputation built
over a distinguished career. But the public doesn’t necessarily know this,
and the failure to identify weakens the story. Anonymous quotes to back
up a reporter’s own conclusions always are suspicious whether they should
be or not.
It would have been far better in this case to have rested on the previous
paragraph, which stated that “privately” many Republicans also worry about
Gingrich’s increasing role in the impeachment strategy.
This particular piece went on to quote “one strategist” and “one operative”
and “another Republican strategist” and “one leadership aide” and a “sympathetic
congressional Republican.” It would be utterly hypocritical of me to pretend
that I have not been insensitive to this in the past. We all have.
But with nonprofessionals of every stripe crowding the Internet and
dozens of poorly trained television “reporters” pumping the airways full
of unsubstantiated material in the fever of competition, it behooves us
to be extremely diligent in our attention to the rules of fairness and
accuracy.
There seems little doubt that our own image has suffered dramatically
from incidents in Cincinnati and Boston and elsewhere. Columnists are no
more immune from the ethical responsibilities than the rest of us. Any
time one of us is caught “making up” something or failing to abide by the
rules, it hurts us all.
As editors, we have a particular responsibility to guard against practices
that further erode the public confidence in newspapers. Unattributed, direct
quotes shouldn’t be tolerated beyond the most bland and inoffensive comment.
Even then there is a better way of saying it.
And as an editor of a major supplemental news service, it is my duty
to see, as far as is humanly possible, that what is sent to our newspapers
is free of this kind of reporting, and it is up to our client editors to
make sure we adhere to this standard.
Thomasson is editor of Scripps Howard News Service in Washington.
