Anonymous sources are increasing in news stories, along with rather curious explanations

It used to be that anonymous sources -- Watergate’s “Deep Throat” was the most famous -- spoke on the condition of anonymity because . . . well, because they wouldn’t speak to reporters any other way. Back then, anonymous sources were just “sources” and you, dear reader, had to take our word for whoever they were and whatever we said they said. Readers noticed, and apparently didn’t like guessing about who was saying what.

In 2004, the New York Times surveyed its subscribers on their concerns about the paper. In the wake of flawed (and often anonymously sourced) reporting before the start of the Iraq war, readers said their biggest gripe was the use of anonymous sources, and that it trumped political bias or even delivery problems, according to Margaret Sullivan, the paper’s current public editor. So, in an attempt at greater transparency, news organizations began explaining why their sources weren’t being identified by name. The idea was to offer readers a little peek under the veil of anonymity. “Frankly, this kind of sourcing is ridiculous,” says Alicia Shepard, a journalist and NPR’s former ombudsman. She adds: “I get it that [news organizations] are trying to be transparent, but it doesn’t enhance the believability of the anonymous quote. The only thing worthwhile about the convoluted sourcing explainers is how funny they are.”