Progress Toward Reducing Anonymity

It's certainly not that way in political reporting. David S. Broder, The Post's venerable political reporter and columnist, said the practice became more prevalent after presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan, gave fewer interviews and news conferences. This led reporters to look for other sources, and most of them didn't want to be named.

Another factor, he said, was the rise of political consultants, who, like sports agents, were available but demanded anonymity. "The consultants were such good sources, knowledgeable and candid. Reporters flocked to them -- only they never wanted to be quoted on the record."

For reporters, colorful, derisive anonymous quotes (sometimes unfair to those they disparage) are like heroin to an addict. You can never come clean if you can't resist them.

While reporters must be diligent about not accepting unneeded anonymous quotes, it is aggravating when sources paid with public money hide behind anonymity.

Although it starts at the White House, sometimes it seems as if every Tom, Dick and Jill wants to be an anonymous source. Deep Throat, now unmasked, provided the ultimate in mystery. Why not be anonymous rather than attach your name to comments that might backfire? But being a stand-up public servant means putting your name where your mouth is. Save anonymity for whistle-blowers and folks afraid for their jobs and lives.

Meg Smith, a Post researcher who helped with this column, recalled a May 7 Style story in remarking, "If Laura Stepp can get college students on the record about not being able to perform sexually, it makes you wonder why reporters can't get White House sources on the record when they talk about government policy."

This is my second column on anonymous sources. In a future column I will explore the delicate relationship between sources and reporters and how it serves -- or doesn't serve -- good journalism.

Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or atombudsman@washpost.com.