From Michael Gerson's op-ed in today's Washington Post:
One Pentagon source (who didn't want to be identified for fear of sounding like a suck-up) calls [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates "extraordinarily quick and extraordinarily even" and praises his "sense of humor and candor behind closed doors."
Washington journalism is lousy with unattributed sources, and I mean that in several senses of the word. There are plenty of background quotes that constitute genuine whistleblowing, and occasional there really is an insite that's worth the grant of anonymity. More often, though, the "source with knowledge of the situation" is grinding an axe, floating a trial balloon, or trying to sound more important than he or she actually is. And sometimes, the reports are just plain lazy.
So while it's entirely possible that Gerson's source had other, less laudable reasons for remaining anonymous -- it wouldn't seem so impressive, for example, if Gates' admirer turned out out to be a public affairs officer for his office -- I'm choosing to take the explanation at face value. At the very least, Gerson and his source both get points for creativity. And I'm not just saying that to suck up.
11 June 2008 - 1:12am
That's pretty great, Troy. For a story on unnamed sources a few years ago, I collected some of my favorite attributions from the Washington Post and N.Y. Times. My person favorite was the source who did not want to be identified "because he is not involved in the case and thus felt it was inappropriate to comment on the record." Here are the others....
http://www.cq.com/public/sourcerules.html
Post new comment