By Deborah Howell
Sunday, June 4, 2006

Anonymous sources can damage a newspaper's credibility. The Post Stylebook says: "When we use an unnamed source, we are asking our readers to take an extra step to trust the credibility of the information we are providing. We must be certain in our own minds that the benefit to readers is worth the cost in credibility."

The Post began to clamp down on the use of anonymous sources in 2004 with a policy that says: "We want to make our reporting as transparent to the readers as possible so they may know how and where we got our information."

A random survey of the second and third weeks of April in 2004, 2005 and 2006 shows progress toward that goal. The Post's News Research Center pulled every staff-written story using unnamed sources in those April weeks, and I looked at them all. In those two weeks in April 2004, anonymous sources were quoted in 66 stories; in April 2005, the figure was 68; and in April 2006, 45.

The 2006 number is headed in the right direction: down. But there's still work to do. Were all 45 instances justified? No. Many did not give a rationale for anonymity, as the policy calls for, and many stories simply quoted "sources" without elaboration. The Stylebook says "attributions to 'sources' or 'informed sources' " should be avoided.

But good for The Post for curbing the kind of pejorative anonymous quotes that are simply unfair: There wasn't one in the 2006 sample and there have been blessedly few this year. The survey showed that the granting of anonymity was down in National, Metro and Business stories. There have been only a few instances in foreign coverage and Style stories.

Sports remains the section where anonymous sources -- nearly half in my look -- are used more than anywhere else in the paper, mainly in coverage of men's professional sports. Curiously, the reasons for using anonymous sources in sports sound similar to the reasons given in reporting on politics and national security.

"A culture of secrecy surrounds sports that has its roots in not wanting to help your opponent in any way," said Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, assistant managing editor for sports. "And it's gotten worse dealing with more aggressive press people who want to control the message."

Garcia-Ruiz said that it used to be easier to talk to players. "Money changed everything. Everyone we cover is a multimillionaire. It's not like politics. It's Hollywood. It's like covering Tom Cruise."

Added to this is the ongoing power struggle among agents, team owners and unions. As sportswriters faced limits covering players up close, they found other avenues of information -- the agents and the people around players. "The most important source now is the agent. They're much more cooperative and accurate. But no agent wants to be named while they're in negotiations," Garcia-Ruiz said.

Another reason for the anonymity is that owners and coaches like to present a unified message. Luckily, Garcia-Ruiz said, "There are plenty of people who can't keep their mouths shut, but they want to be anonymous for fear of getting fired."

Sports reporters at The Post are competing not only against other media outlets. They are competing against the teams themselves, Garcia-Ruiz said, "who are trying to replace traditional media as the source of information." The teams' Web sites, of course, promote the teams. In a newspaper, you expect to read the good, the bad and the ugly.

Whenever there's questionable use of anonymity in the paper, there are complaints. Except in Sports. Not one negative comment on anonymous sources in Sports has come my way. That's odd. Is it because Sports isn't considered to have the gravity of other reporting? The Post's standards are the same in all departments.

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.