Anonymous sources

The San Francisco Chronicle's  readers' representative has given a good summary of the problem that the news media have created for themselves by allowing sources to abuse the privilege of confidentiality: The use and misuse of unnamed sources by Dick Rogers San Francisco Chronicle 07/24/05.

Asked by Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein (Sharon Stone's ex-husband) to review their paper's use of such sources, he went through 60 stories relying on unnamed sources.  His findings:

The articles appeared in nearly every section -- main news, local, sports, business and features. Many were weighty and important to the public. (Was state Senate leader Don Perata benefiting financially from people who stood to gain from his support? Was former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley using taxpayer-financed grants to underwrite his political campaigns?)

Sometimes, though, the use of unnamed sources appeared easily avoidable or inappropriate. In one case an "informed source" is allowed to commit the journalistic equivalent of a drive-by shooting -- criticizing the performance of a colleague from behind a shield of anonymity.

What bothered me most is that the paper too often failed to give readers basic information about why sources were allowed to avoid identification and why their comments ought to be believed.

In 80 percent of the cases, the paper said nothing about the sources' motives for remaining anonymous. Were their jobs in jeopardy? Were they potentially in danger? Or was the paper just making it easier for sources to avoid embarrassment or criticize without risk?

I'm in favor of some kind of federal shield law that would protect journalists' sources in some circumstances.  But the Valerie Plame case shows how the system can be gamed for illigitimate purposes.  Even psychiatrists have laws that define the limits of patient confidentiality.  For instance, in California at least and probably most other states, a therapist is required to warn a person who is mentioned by a patient as a possible target of violence.

Reporters and their sources need protection when it's a case of a genuine whistleblower.  But ratting out CIA undercover agents for pure political spite is not one of them.