"Anonymous sources"

A few years ago, journalism adopted a new standard concerning anonymous sources. No longer could information be attributed simply to "anonymous sources." A reporter could agree not to use the source's name, but now a reason would have to be published.

Thus we have, in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, an article about the overthrow of the Kyrgyzstan government:

A senoir U. S. military official says some flights were briefly diverted . . . Scheduled troop movements in and out of Afghanistan were not affected. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because base operations are sensitive.

And the New York Times provides another example in an article about errors in the Federal Reserve's oversight of Citigroup:

They [documents] also suggest that the Fed examiners failed to move swiftly as Citigroup's financial condition deteriorated, according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize the commission's inquiry.

Let's get this straight: someone spills the beans but asks not to be identified because base operations are sensitive and so as not to jeopardize the commission's inquiry.

That's disingenuous. These sources are admitting that they are revealing information that, on the face of it, may harm some official operation; they just don't want to get in trouble for telling.

If operations are sensitive, they are still sensitive; and if it will jeopardize the inquiry, it will still jeopardize the inquiry. All it does it keep your name out of the paper.

This is very different from a whistleblower exposing official wrongdoing. Neither example suggests that the source is critical of the official position.

Of course, we also know that the "anonymous" source is often a way for the people in charge to leak information that, for various reasons, they want to avoid being quoted on. And I guess that's ok. But it strikes me as a lot of needless subterfuge and further undermines the sense of integrity in news reporting.

Ralph