I'm not an expert in the journalistic use of anonymous sources, but something seems to be getting out of hand. Almost every article I read about government activities cites unnamed anonymous sources. The New York Times often includes awkward notes about why their sources asked for anonymity, but the reasons don't always seem that compelling. And the Times doesn't typically offer a compelling argument for why they granted anonymity; instead, they only report that the source requested anonymity for certain reasons. And sometimes those reasons are entirely missing.
Take this excerpt from an
article today about the government's plan to shoot down a failing intelligence satellite:
Providing new information about how the mission would be carried out, a senior military officer on Wednesday described the vessels, weapons and command structure for the unusual operation, the first time an interceptor designed for missile defense would be used to attack a satellite. The senior military officer briefed reporters on condition of anonymity. [emphasis added]
Why would a senior military officer "brief" reporters about the operation, but only on the condition of anonymity? When I read "briefed reporters," I imagine a press conference with multiple reporters from different news organizations, listening to a statement and asking questions. Did this take place in person, or over the phone? If it was over the phone, how do reporters know the officer is who he says he is, and that he is in a position to know what he is talking about? He could have said, "I'm Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but since you're not going to print that, no one will ever catch me."
And why would a senior military officer share information about the program only to withhold his name? Was he not authorized to share this information? If that's the case, since he is an officer, he can expect a court martial in his future, no? What about his assistant? Did he help set up the meeting? Did anyone else know about it?
Clearly I don't understand how this whole thing works. It seems like a casual and capricious use of anonymity. Since when does our government get to hide behind anonymous spokesmen? If you're not in a position to fear retribution for talking to the press, then anonymity only implies that you've got something to hide. Which makes me not want to believe a word you say.
So, in my way of understanding, this innocuous article should have been recast as this: Government Refuses to Discuss Details of Satellite Shoot-Down. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, without good reason, is like not speaking at all.
