Why do newspapers like the New York Times or The Washington Post cite unnamed sources so frequently?

Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
I'm starting to wonder if some of their stories are pure fiction.

For example, the following will be in tomorrow's Washington Post:


Iran harboring al Qaeda deputies

Sources say two are plotting attacks

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia, Aug. 27 ? Two figures who have assumed critical roles in the al Qaeda hierarchy in recent months, including one reported dead by the Pentagon, are being sheltered in Iran along with dozens of other al Qaeda fighters in hotels and guesthouses in the border cities of Mashhad and Zabol, according to Arab intelligence sources.

THE TWO ? Saif al-Adel, an Egyptian on the FBI?s most-wanted list, and Mahfouz Ould Walid, also known as Abu Hafs the Mauritanian, whom U.S. officials reported had been killed near the eastern Afghan city of Khost in January ? are directly involved in planning al Qaeda terrorist operations, according to the intelligence sources, who are outside Saudi Arabia and did not want their names or countries disclosed.

With Osama bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri, in hiding, the sources said, and with the death of the former military chief, Muhammad Atef, the two have assumed operational control of al Qaeda?s military committee, which directs attacks, and its ideological or religious committee, which issues fatwas, or statements, to justify those attacks.


The idea of the transfer of power arose after the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, when it became apparent to al Qaeda that the United States might attack Afghanistan and capture or kill some of its senior leaders, the sources said. The need to put the transfer into practice became even more apparent in March with the capture in Pakistan of Abu Zubaida, a Palestinian and senior al Qaeda planner.

The sources also said that one of bin Laden?s sons, Saad, who is in his early twenties, is being groomed as his father?s successor because of the symbolism offered by the idea of a dynasty. And while the sources said that Saad has not assumed a formal position, he has increasingly been communicating with operatives worldwide in order to burnish his standing with them.

?[Saad] has authority, but Zawahiri is still number two,? said a senior Arab intelligence officer.

Dozens of other al Qaeda fighters, and possibly more, are also staying in a cluster of hotels in Mashhad, in northeastern Iran near the borders with Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, and in guesthouses in Zabol, about 400 miles farther south on the Iranian-Afghan border, the sources said.

The report from these sources supported the Bush administration?s long-standing assertion that Iran ? or at least hard-liners in the conservative clerical line of authority that controls the army and intelligence services ? is harboring al Qaeda fighters.

A spokesman for the Iranian mission to the United Nations denied that al-Adel and Walid are in Iran and added: ?Iran?s policy is not to permit such people to enter Iran.?

Nevertheless, the sources said al-Adel and Walid meet regularly with lieutenants in Mashhad and Zabol, and that Iran has also been used as a way station to other countries for al Qaeda fighters who have fled Afghanistan since the Taliban was defeated in November.

The sources said Iran?s transfer of 16 al Qaeda operatives to Saudi Arabia in June, along with small deportations to other countries, were a pretense used to rebutt the Bush administration?s charges and encourage the idea that it was cooperating in the U.S.-led war on terrorism. The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud Faisal, cited the June handover as an instance of such cooperation in an interview this month.

http://msnbc.com/news/800046.asp
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Most sources want to remain unnamed, because of job security, or safety. If the papers released the identity of their informants against the sources wishes, no one would trust them. Result- no news.
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Most sources want to remain unnamed, because of job security, or safety. If the papers released the identity of their informants against the sources wishes, no one would trust them. Result- no news.
If a newspaper bases an entire news story on unnamed sources, the reader has absolutely no way of judging the credibility of the information. And if the reader can't judge its credibility, the information is worthless. That's like one of the first things you learn in a high school writing class.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: Vespasian
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Most sources want to remain unnamed, because of job security, or safety. If the papers released the identity of their informants against the sources wishes, no one would trust them. Result- no news.
If a newspaper bases an entire news story on unnamed sources, the reader has absolutely no way of judging the credibility of the information. And if the reader can't judge its credibility, the information is worthless. That's like one of the first things you learn in a high school writing class.
Except that this has been a standard feature of politics for decades now, with more-or-less established rules for how it's done. People in both parties and all parts of government leak stories to help shape public opinion and drive public policy.

Sometimes it's done before making an official announcement to "test the waters" (for example to see if the public supports assassinating Saddam, or would support a tax increase to "fight terrorism" etc.). Sometimes it's done to block and upcoming announcement by reducing support for it. It's all part of the Washington insider game. Not that there's anything right with that.

 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Originally posted by: Vespasian
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Most sources want to remain unnamed, because of job security, or safety. If the papers released the identity of their informants against the sources wishes, no one would trust them. Result- no news.
If a newspaper bases an entire news story on unnamed sources, the reader has absolutely no way of judging the credibility of the information. And if the reader can't judge its credibility, the information is worthless. That's like one of the first things you learn in a high school writing class.
Except that this has been a standard feature of politics for decades now, with more-or-less established rules for how it's done. People in both parties and all parts of government leak stories to help shape public opinion and drive public policy.

Sometimes it's done before making an official announcement to "test the waters" (for example to see if the public supports assassinating Saddam, or would support a tax increase to "fight terrorism" etc.). Sometimes it's done to block and upcoming announcement by reducing support for it. It's all part of the Washington insider game. Not that there's anything right with that.
But sometimes the story isn't political in nature.

Occasionally citing unnamed sources is understandable, but some of the major newspapers do it so frequently that you just have to wonder if something fishy is going on.
 

BlueApple

Banned
Jul 5, 2001
2,884
0
0
Mostly becuase it is a leak or something that isnt suppose to be realsed to the press. If it is a in a paper like NYT or WP, you can usually expect that these authors have LOTS of connections.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: BlueApple
Mostly becuase it is a leak or something that isnt suppose to be realsed to the press. If it is a in a paper like NYT or WP, you can usually expect that these authors have LOTS of connections.
Exactly, the ones that aren't political are generally either whistle-blowers or backstabbers. The newspapers often won't run that kind of story without additional confirmation from other anonymous sources though.

You're right that you shouldn't trust such a story as much as when the sources are in the open, but barring a corrupt journalist you can trust that (a) the journalist almost certainly does know the source and (b) the journalist has some reason to believe that the source is not lying.

Considering what corporations often do to whistle-blowers these days (criminal charges, civil suits to bankrupt them, firing without cause etc.) anonymous sources are the only way we can find out some stories.

 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: Vespasian
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Most sources want to remain unnamed, because of job security, or safety. If the papers released the identity of their informants against the sources wishes, no one would trust them. Result- no news.
If a newspaper bases an entire news story on unnamed sources, the reader has absolutely no way of judging the credibility of the information. And if the reader can't judge its credibility, the information is worthless. That's like one of the first things you learn in a high school writing class.


Sort of. Read on:

During Watergate, the Nixon administration's burglary and coverup scandal, The Washington Post articulated a standard for using unnamed sources that became widely accepted. If a reporter were to use information given anonymously, he or she would need two sources with independent, firsthand knowledge to corroborate it - "not two sources who heard the same rumor," ...

This is widely taught (at least where I'm from) in (college-level) journalism courses.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Because these sources are often leaking sensitive information and are breaking the law. In the old USSR, NKVD would declare these people enemies of the state and summarily execute them. Of course here the PC crowd would have a fit if that happenned. I can just imagine what ACLU would say if we had a summary execution in this country. :D