Page 50 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

Anonymous Sources, Leaks, and Nat onal Secur ty |

the broadsheets of that day, there were lots of opinions, and lots of mundane
bulletin board material, like lists of when commercial ships were to set sail. But
from the start, reporters played their assigned role: they were skeptical of what
the government told them, and they questioned official pronouncements.
The framers were insistent that the press be independent, that it provide a
check on official action. The press was not supposed to be a cheerleader for ac-
tions of government. Many years later, this view was neatly captured by Finley
Peter Dunne, who wrote wildly popular, satirical “Mr. Dooley” columns in the
early twentieth century that were nationally syndicated. The fictional Dooley was
an opinionated, first-generation, Irish American bar owner who criticized the na-
tion and its most powerful people. It was Dooley who thought the duty of a news-
paper was to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.” This comment has
been attributed by some writers to Henry Louis Mencken. Thomas Griffith asserts
in The Waist-High Culture (1959), though, that the phrasing was Dooley’s first.
The practice of anonymously leaking information to the press is as old as
the country. George Washington often was angered because word-for-word ac-
counts of his Cabinet meetings were published in newspapers of the day. Wash-
ington thought his political rival, Thomas Jefferson, was intent on embarrassing
him and therefore probably leaked this information. In the nineteenth century,
journalists were known to bribe clerks to turn over government documents. The
clerks remained anonymous.
Contemporary journalists have a finer sense of propriety; they ordinarily do
not bribe anyone. But confidential sources remain the lifeblood of this country’s
journalism, particularly in Washington, where reporters keenly feel they have
an obligation to provide the public with necessary information. If use of con-
fidential sources was prohibited, readers would be cut off from a great deal of
information. On the other hand, attributing information to confidential sources
is not fully satisfactory, arousing genuine issues about the credibility of the in-
formation. It is not possible to gauge the reliability of information if readers do
not know its sources. When modern journalists must resort to anonymity, they
need to tell readers and viewers as much as possible about their sources, but they
often fall short of this goal.

“rELiaBLE sourCEs”

For much of the last half of the twentieth century, journalists would almost
routinely attribute nonpublic information to “reliable sources.” But this formula-
tion was not very helpful. Of course, the source was “reliable.” Why else would
it be used? This particular locution—“reliable sources”—appears much less fre-
quently these days.
Dangers abound in using—or overusing—anonymous sources: reporters may
subject themselves to being manipulated by someone who passes on informa-
tion for personal gain. Readers may suspect that the anonymous sources just do
not exist, and thus undercut the credibility of the press.
The country’s best reporters, including those who regularly write about na-
tional security issues, almost always rely on well-placed sources who reporters