A few years ago, when newspapers had the luxury of worrying about things other than paying their creditors, a small scandal was generated over the question of overreliance on anonymous sources. The conventional wisdom was that readers need to know, except in extreme cases, who is talking. On its face, this is quite reasonable, although many journalists will tell you that you many sources won't tell you what they really think or what they really know unless you go off the record.

(I have some sympathy for both sides in this argument. In my own post-newspaper work, my rule is that I will publish information from anonymous sources only if I know the situation and the source well enough to put my full personal credibility behind it. So far, I haven't been burned, but the pressure to break news creates a serious risk.)

Anyway, one of the outcomes of the small scandal over anonymous sources is that the big papers adopted a rule: You have to give the reason that the source asked for anonymity. If you look for it, you'll find a lot of sentences that end with "according to a source with knowledge of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the matter."

Although there are many variations, "not authorized" seems to be the most common version, and raises a number slightly creepy but all-too-true inferences. For example, the actual spokester is the only one actually "authorized to speak" to the press, but she/he is putting out a transparent line of bull that I will nonetheless put that line of bull into into my story because an on-the-record statement of utter bull from an authorized spokester passes for a "fact" under the strange norms of journalism, but someone I know and trust is giving me a much more incisive insider view of the situation, but he will get in big trouble with someone if his view is expressed with his name attached. So the reporter decides to grant anonymity to the source in order to get a more incisive take into his story, but then has to comply with the new rule so, based on a negotiation with the source, inserts the "not authorized" explanation, which is true enough but doesn't really do much to help the reader understand what to make of the blind quote.

Why am I bringing all this up today? No great reason except that I make it a practice to note the explanations that are used under the new rule, and I saw a couple of good ones recently.

For example, when New York Gov. David Paterson named Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to the Hillary Clinton Senate seat, the Washington Post quoted Paterson's official statement calling Gillibrand "dynamic," "articulate," "perceptive," and "courageous" then quoted Pres. Obama's news release calling her "a strong voice for transparency and reform in government," Clinton's oficial statement calling her "an intelligent and dedicated public servant and a dear friend," but, the piece, as published in the Strib, also included this paragraph:

"She's the poster woman for the NRA in New York," said one veteran Democratic strategist from the city, who asked not to be named in order to speak more candidly. "That's a problem downstate where people have been the victim of gun crimes."

I like that "more candidly" explanation, which really captures what's going on.

Then there was this one last weekend, in a truly alarming New York Times story about how the Taliban conducts itself in a region of Pakistan, known as Swat, under Taliban control. One revered village leader had resisted the Taliban. The Taliban killed him in a firefight, then wanted to desecrate his corpse, which his followers had buried in a secret location. So they started beheading villagers until someone disclosed the location of the grave. Then they dug the man up and hung his body in the village square, as a lesson to future resisters and as a symbol that they were in total control of the situation and the Pakistani government could do nothing about it.Then this, which is an example of going off the record to allow someone to say something pretty darn obvious:

“He should have been given more protection,” said one Pakistani security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the subject.

The quote didn't add much to the story, and it's pitiful, but understandable, that the official had to request anonymity to make such an obvious observation. But perhaps the "delicacy of the subject" explains it adequately.

I asked a friend of mine, who does a lot more investigative reporting than I do, what we should make of the new arrangement that requires reporters to publicly state a reason, however bogus or lame, every time they allow a source to go off the record. Said he:

"We should make of it that the editors came up with a rule that the reporters hate and this is what the reporters have come up with to get around it," said my friend who asked that his name not be used in case his editors might read this story.

What think?