Just about everybody is in agreement about the use of anonymous sources in news stories. Readers deplore it, public editors shake a finger at it, Times editors and reporters say they try to minimize it. The Times’s “Manual of Style and Usage†calls it “a last resort,†noting that anonymous sources are to be used sparingly, only when the information cannot be provided any other way, and certainly never to smear anyone.
But then Monday’s front page comes along, and there they are â€" anonymous sources in prominent places on important subjects.
The lead article on the page cited “a senior Obama administration official†on a subject that could not be more serious or carry more import: the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria, a situation that is moving the United States toward military action.
Lower on The Times’s front page, an article about Bill de Blasio, who is running for mayor of New York City, used anonymous sources more than once to take swipes at the candidate. (My e-mail was also full of readers complaining about other examples of anonymous sources from recent days â€" one in a China story; one in a metropolitan police story. This is clearly an equal-opportunity issue.)
How acceptable are these sources? One reader, Stacy Beam, compared the use of the anonymous source in the Syria article with the use of now-disparaged anonymous sources in the run-up to the Iraq war.
I guess we really haven’t learned too much since the Iraq war, have we? Scott Shane’s Syria article today repeats anonymous government officials (and other international officials who arguably have an agenda) making very, very strong conclusive statements about chemical weapon use without much support. As usual, The New York Times is more than glad to help the most powerful leaders in the world get their message out without having to worry about little things about accountability, counterarguments, other facts and various unknowns that make the administration talking points that speak of “no doubt†about chemical weapon use in Syria seem rather simplistic.
Another reader, Art Holloway, criticized the de Blasio article, saying it “reads like a hit job.†One passage in particular, he said, “would seem to violate every rule about the use of anonymous sources.†That passage read:
“I have never heard anyone say that Bill de Blasio†is an overly demanding boss, said a top Democrat who has frequently worked with Mr. de Blasio and spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing relations with him and his aides. “He is probably a little conflict averse,†said the Democrat, who is supporting another candidate.
This was not the only anonymously sourced critical comment in the article.
(I disagree, by the way, that the article read like a “hit job,†though it certainly included criticism.)
I spoke with Scott Shane, one of the authors of the Syria article, and whose work I find consistently strong.  “I could have described it as a White House statement,†he said. “This was not a junior bureaucrat freelancing†or administration sources making assertions about “on the ground†conditions; it was essentially a policy statement.
The use of the phrase “a senior Obama administration official†to describe the sourcing “could be misleading,†Mr. Shane agreed. “The whole point was that this was an official statement.†In retrospect, he believes that it would have been clearer to call it a White House statement, rather than attribute it as the administration preferred, which other news outlets also agreed to do.
“I tried to get that across with saying it was carefully worded,†he said. But readers â€" rightly sensitive to The Times’s lack of skepticism in earlier circumstances â€" can’t be expected to read between those lines. Calling it a White House statement, if that’s what it was, would have been more straightforward and much better.
(In general, The Times’s coverage of Syria, in recent weeks, has avoided the mistakes made before the Iraq war â€" which were less the product of anonymous sources than of flawed reporting. And its editorial page has been appropriately cautious on the same subject.)
The politics editor, Carolyn Ryan, defended the use of the anonymous quotations in the profile of Mr. de Blasio. Of the one mentioned by Mr. Holloway, she said: “The quote is very measured. The person, whose identity the reporter shared with me before the story was published, says that de Blasio is not overly demanding, and is probably ‘a little conflict averse.’ That comment is not a personal or partisan attack. And it aligns with the many interviews we conducted for the story, and certainly with the narrative the story lays out in detail.â€
Ms. Ryan also found unobjectionable one of the first quotations in the article, describing a long-winded conference call. “It was amazing that Bill was more than willing to let this go on,†she said.
Ms. Ryan added: “We had multiple accounts of that conference call â€" three interviews about it, and all accounts aligned. The quote brought the anecdote to life. It was one of disbelief, mainly, that Mr. de Blasio allowed the discussion to go on for so long.â€
I find the anonymous criticism throughout the article regrettable. It’s possible that no one would say such things on the record; if that’s the case, those comments didn’t belong in the article as direct quotations.
As The Times’s stylebook puts it, “The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper.â€
There is a place for anonymously sourced information in news articles. Used sparingly and wisely, it’s a valuable journalistic tool. Sometimes there’s no other way to get out important truths. This wasn’t such a case.
