Actually, I agree with much of what Glenn Greenwald writes here: Government officials are too quick to demand anonymity. Banal statements -- "the president thinks health care is important," say -- will be put on background. But we are, fundamentally, dealing with a collective action problem: So long as there are journalists willing to speak with sources on background, sources can demand background for most all commentary. An individual writer -- particularly at a small outlet -- can then choose between anonymous sources or none at all. And so far as informing readers go, some sourcing is better than none. That said, this is partially our fault as a profession. Journalists frequently use official quotes not just to inform but to embarrass. I have, at this point, had multiple conversations with multiple senior members of the Obama administration in which they admitted that they expect the employer tax exclusion will be capped and an individual mandate will be passed. No one will go on the record about that. They understand, rightly, that the insights won't be presented as "important policy information about the health care system" so much as "political hypocrisy that can embarrass the administration." So though these are policy judgments from relevant players, it's left unsaid, because to say it would be, in their judgment, more embarrassing than informative. (Also, to be fair, they say that these may be their judgments, but there's a congressional process that they should not prejudge. That's true too.) And even when we're dealing with less contentious statements, too many policy types have seen honest-but-unclear quotes on complicated matters ripped from context or misrepresented. A Treasury official trying to walk a journalist through evolving thinking on a subtle problem can be confident that a misstatement or controversial musing will make it into print. They can't be confident that a nuanced incarnation of their argument will do the same. So how does it help them to go on the record? What do they court but a swift trip to Rahm's dungeon? As journalists have oriented their coverage to chase headlines and maximize audience -- a necessity of the economics buffeting the profession, in many ways -- public officials have reacted with understandable wariness and suspicion. I don't know how you get out of that cycle. But the judgment I've made is that my readers learn more even when the sourcing is anonymous then they'd learn if I decided to stop talking to officials on principal. It's not the optimal outcome, but it is, as far as I can tell, the best this site can do.
