This week’s New Yorker reports on a conversation with a top official at a major global financial institution who asked not to be identified “because, well, he did not want to be identified.”
It’s a refreshing jab at the New York Times, which has recently put itself through contortions to justify printing comments from anonymous sources. (There’s a history, of course — Google Jayson Blair — but it’s beyond our present porpoises.)
We’ve been monitoring the situation for you (SL at its post). The Times quotes many a source who requests anonymity because:
“He is not authorized to speak on the events.”
“The meeting was not public.”
“The subject matter is sensitive.”
. . . and so on.
Where does it end? Before long it will be “an official who asked not to be identified because he was eating a ham sandwich.”
The New Yorker approach is better, although they backslide week-to-week. Actually, we prefer the old-fashioned approach, where a rag protects its anonymous sources without justification or apology. A journalist who makes up quotes can make up a reason for anonymity. The NYT add-ons are meaningless.
