Anonymous sources and bookofjoe

New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent has been thrashing the grey lady for some time now over its propensity to quote anonymous sources in news stories.

He deplores the practice and believes it lessens the credibility of the information presented.

The Times knows it's got a huge problem and commissioned a major internal investigation of the paper's practices.

You can read its report here.

I really enjoy Okrent's column, which runs every Sunday in the editorial section of the Times.

Also, Okrent or his assistant respond to my emails, an ususual event for those associated with the Times.

As I think about it, Okrent's pieces are the most blog–like of anything in the Times in that they are the only writing in the paper not subject to editorial oversight.

Perhaps the less intermediation by editors and institutions the better.

Okrent's space this past Sunday consisted of letters from readers, addressing the subject of anonymous sources.

One letter began, "My reaction to any article that does not name the source is to stop reading."

You know, I think I'm going to adopt this approach as of five minutes ago: unnamed source = time to move on.

The writer of the letter continued, "When I read an article with unnamed sources, I reflexively accuse the paper, reporter and source of being dishonest."

Me too.

I just never took the next step the way Frank Leister, the author of the above–quoted letter, did.

But better late than never, say I.

I don't think I've ever used an anonymous source in bookofjoe.

I've put my name on everything that's ever appeared here.

If someone gave me an anonymous tip I don't know that I'd use it.

Now, when a reader emails me from a real email address and asks that I not use her or his name or even initials as is my wont if not otherwise requested, I'm happy to comply.

That's not anonymous to me, though it is to you, I guess.

I guess I'm gonna have to fall back on my old saw:

"Trust me — I'm a doctor."

Caveat emptor.