Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, March 12, 2009 01:41 PM

  We've identified the problem, now what do we do about it?

  Glenn,

  I agree with your premise wholeheartedly, that anonymous sources are an abusive and destructive influence on our media discourse. You've brought up compelling examples of this time and again, yet I have not heard a suggestion about what we, as a society, can do to resolve this problem. I appreciate your efforts with Accountability Now, which does attempt to make a change in the real world after you've identified the problems with unrepresentative incumbents. In the same way, I suspect you have some thoughts on what can be done to solve (or at least curb) this problem.

  I would like to offer my thoughts on this, as a starting point. One issue here that we can all agree on is one you reference here by Ezra Klein - "I don't know how you get out of that cycle" - namely, that since this is an industry-wide practice, those that would like to stop using anonymous sources would be undercut by their competitors that are willing to do so. This is a similar problem that other industries have dealt with, and we as a society have (somewhat) solved this by having the government regulations which require everyone play by the same rules.

  I realize there are additional constitutional issues at play here. The government could not, of course, simply ban anonymous sources in journalism. We wouldn't want that in any case. However, the government can regulate the actions of its employees. Of course, if the source is anonymous, the government would be unable to directly prevent that employee from speaking. That being said, the government can effectively dissuade journalists from accepting anonymous sources by "cutting off" journalists who attribute quotes to anonymous government sources. Imagine a regulating body that keeps track of journalists who have used anonymous sources, and directs all government employees to not speak with that journalist. Then, if it is ever found that an employee did speak to said banned journalist, that employee could be reprimanded somehow.

  Something like this would seriously make all journalists think twice about allowing anonymity. In those rare cases where anonymity is justified, I would imagine the journalist could appeal their banned status and try to justify it.

  I would be very curious to hear what you think about this option, or any other way of effectively preventing this practice from continuing.

  Thanks

  —jakefeasel Read jakefeasel's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel