Ask what is being hidden behind `on condition of anonymity'

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/12/03/2003390953

By J. Michael Cole

Monday, Dec 03, 2007, Page 9

Anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the past year will have noticed the recent boom in the use of "on condition of anonymity," "who wished not to be named" or variations on that formula. Sources, government officials, "persons" privy to corporate takeover talks -- the army of faceless and nameless individuals seems to be growing at such a rate that in future it seems reporters themselves will start using anonymity as a byline.

What lies behind this phenomenon and why does this oblique way of making information public seem to be growing in popularity?

The answers are troubling, as is the fact that the practice has failed to attract the criticism it warrants.

Not so long ago, most it not all anonymous sources were bona fide whistleblowers, individuals like Daniel Ellsberg, who during the Vietnam War leaked the Pentagon Papers; Joseph Wilson, who exposed the fabrication of intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and, on the corporate side, Jeffrey Wigand, who risked it all to expose Big Tobacco's illegal "spiking" of cigarettes to increase nicotine dependence in smokers.

Back then, when anonymity actually meant something, these individuals used this means to protect themselves and their families, and often did so because they had signed confidentiality agreements. They only used anonymity as a last resort, when they had exhausted all other possible venues and felt, on moral grounds, that they needed to expose a great wrong.

The anonymous sources we encounter in the news today, on the other hand, can be just about anyone, from a military officer in Baghdad describing a battle to a government official in Washington commenting on environmental policy to "persons" in the know about a multibillion dollar takeover bid. With some exceptions, what the great majority of those sources have in common is the fact that, unlike their predecessors, none of them would face danger, retribution or imprisonment if their identity were exposed.

[ixion]

1. none of them would face danger, retribution or imprisonment...

I would disagree with that statement. I think that you're seeing more anonymity in reporting is a horrible thing that reminds me of the news stories I read coming out of China and Russia. On the other hand, those people who are speaking out are doing so at great risk, because this admin loves retribution and vengeance to the point of perversion.