Why No Byline or Named Source for an Article About a Leak Investigation?

A careful reader of The Times, David Smollar of San Diego, makes some astute observations about an unusual article in Friday's paper. The article caught many people's eyes because it lacked a byline. It also quoted Jill Abramson, the executive editor, and it used an unnamed source to confirm an NBC News report that a retired Marine officer, Gen. James E. Cartwright, is a target of a leak investigation about American cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear program.

As Mr. Smollar noted, the article required some “mental gymnastics” on the part of the reader.

He wrote:

It quotes a “person familiar with the investigation” confirming an investigation of Cartwright a s (the/a) leaker for NY Times stories that used unidentified sources about cyberattacks against Iran by the U.S.

It quotes Jill Abramson as declining comment on matters that involve “confidential sources.”

So here we have an NY Times story, with no byline, that uses a confidential source to confirm an investigation about someone suspected of being a confidential source for a series of NY Times stories. And the NY Times itself refusing to comment on a story written by the NY Times about the NY Times.

He added: “Confusing? You bet! My head was spinning after reading the article.”

I asked the managing editor Dean Baquet to explain the background. He told me that there was a rush Thursday night to confirm the NBC news report. The lack of a byline was “not a political decision” in any way but simply refle cted the number of reporters working on what turned out to be a brief article, he said.

In an e-mail, Mr. Baquet wrote: “It was a short story that numerous people scrambled to confirm when the networks broke it. It seemed odd to have more than one byline, and no one felt any real ownership of it.”

As for the confidentiality of the source, Mr. Baquet couldn't comment on that any more than Ms. Abramson was able to in the article itself.

The use of unnamed sources is never ideal. Sometimes it's necessary to get important information on the record. While I can't disagree entirely with Mr. Smollar's criticism, there probably was no alternative, given the deadline situation.

3:35 p.m. | Updated Friday afternoon, Foreign Policy magazine published a piece online that analyzes and helps mak e sense of the development.