A New York Times story (February 9, 2011) on the internal debate at the Century Club over its ties to the all-male Garrick club in London shows how anonymous sources should be properly characterized:
Club rules strictly forbid members from publicly discussing what happens inside its walls, but two dozen of them detailed the contours of the disagreement. Most did so on the condition of anonymity, to avoid being expelled or ostracized.
The reporter, Michael Barbaro, avoids using the kind of uninformative, disingenuous, and tautological characterizations — such as “because they did not want to talk publicly” or “because they were not authorized to speak” — that are commonly, and lazily, employed in journalism today. Instead of letting self-serving anonymous sources describe their own rationalizations or provide empty excuses, he correctly identifies their real motives for seeking cover. In doing so he serves the story and the readers, not the sources.
So Barbaro and the Times deserve a hat tip. But it’s a sad commentary on the state of journalism that this is the exception rather than the rule.