July 06, 2005
Thinking about anonymity
Anonymity is a favorite issue, of couse, among sociologists and observers of online technology. Which is why I have been watching the discussion around the Plame case with a sort of horrified fascination.
If I understand correctly:
* A source asked for anonymity, and provided information relating current events to secret information to several major newspaper reporters. (By doing so, the source may have committed a crime)
* The article was refused by most of the reporters. All of the reporters accepted the anonymity request; all but one rejected the article.
* The article was, on its face, an attempt to discredit a critic of the administration by suggesting it came from a favoritist source.
As far as I know, none of these are controversial points.
It's now becoming clear that the source may have been an administrative higher-up. That is, a representative from the top levels of the administration--which has a powerful mouthpiece in tools like the daily press conference--decided that the best way to communicate was through an anonymous leak.
(This is not the only occasion upon which this has happened, of course).
Now, the leak could be the choice for several reasons. Perhaps there was some chance the statement was wrong, and the official didn't want to be held accountable for it. Perhaps the official didn't want to be quoted on a nakedly defamatory statement. Perhaps it was meant to be "background"--not for quoting, but instead for "context."
This article suggests that journalists need to more carefully consider who they owe anonymity to.
So now I bring in the social analyst hat. Anonymity is a trade. If a statement was really, truly anonymous, then it would be read as the ravings of a madman. "A person who refused to be identified in any form whatsoever said that ...." So clearly, there is credibility being exchanged and used as currency. In some critical sense, the journalist is linking their credibility to their sources'.
But then the system breaks down, sometimes. "I was just reporting what the source said," says the journalist, and "it wasn't me!" say a dozen plausible candidates, and the poor little false leask, the irritating dirt, the damaging fact floats around, abandoned.
Facts should be tied by a string of crediblity to the speaker.
I would go one or two steps further then the article above, premised on the idea that anonymous tipsters are meant to be trying to share information that they couldn't otherwise get to the people who need to know it.
1. Anonymity requires accountability. Anonymous information should be truthful, should be something that couldn't be said openly, and should benefit the public. If these conditions aren't held, the source should be exposed. That's right: if a source abuses their anonymity, they should face the consequences of their abuse. Thus, for example, if an administration official anonymously claims that the US is not considering a course of action, and the next day we do that course of action, then the official should be identified.
2. Extraordinary anonymity requires extraordinary accountability. A guy in the labor department who points out that the books don't add up is fundamentally different than a person at a higher level who has usual press access. The whistle-blower needs support. The higher-up requires suspicion.
Now, I think this is a pretty juicy piece of meat. I'm offering reporters a fair deal by which they get to report "XYZ lied!" occasionally. The downside, I guess, is that their lying sources might decide not to cal lthem. (Presumably, honest and upright sources wouldn't be concerend.)
What am I missing?
