Justification for using anonymous sources

Today’s piece by Craig Northrup on divisions within the Republican Party features something rare to these pages: two anonymous sources. In the name of transparency, we thought it worthwhile to discuss the use of such material.

The bottom line is this: It’s news that matters.

After all, that’s what we do here.

There are three criteria for anonymous sourcing. The first is whether the issue is important. In this case, the answer is clearly yes. Political parties — for all their flaws — are an integral part of our system. An informed public, and certainly its electorate, ought to know the state of these organizations and what they represent. That’s important. That’s news.

Second, we determine whether the source is credible and the reporting is accurate. Is the story believable? Is it verifiable? This piece easily met that standard. These sources said the words we quoted them as saying, and we believe they were honestly describing their viewpoints.

The third step is to ascertain whether the information could be obtained by another method or from another source that is willing to speak for attribution. If the issue is truly a matter of import, if the source is demonstrably credible and there is no other way to publish information necessary and worthwhile to public discourse, then we will offer the source anonymity.

We do not do it often. We do not do it lightly.

To be clear, it’s not an endorsement. Anonymity is simply a tool for truth seeking.

What, you ask, is truth?

Well, you’ll need to determine that based on your own conscience. The closest we can do is give you the facts and let you decide.

Not a bad motto.