Anonymity should be granted ... to the reporter

Is it just lazy reporting, or is "journalism" an anachronism, something that today looks as odd and out of its time as an 8-track?

Which brings us to our latest contender for the Anonymice Award, found this week in the New York Times' Sunday Styles Section in a story about how some wealthy Manhattan families -- burdened with two weeks of holiday vacation time from their children's private schools -- are opting to visit two destinations, often one snowy and one sunny, to avoid the unbearable monotony of fourteen days at a single luxury resort.

While the Times' Lisa Birnbach was able to find one parent to speak on the record for her all-important anecdotal lead, it seems the rest of the fabulously rich Manhattan moms and dads Birnbach interviewed did not wish to be identified. And, as we all know from the Times' "Principles for Granting Anonymity," "The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy. When we use such sources, we accept an obligation ... to convey what we can learn of their motivation."

And so, Birnbach reports after quoting one New York mom: "This mother would speak only if her name did not appear in the newspaper, a condition also demanded by most of the others interviewed for this article. It is not that the vacation plans of privileged Manhattanites are sensitive matters of national security. But the families did not want to expose themselves to envy, or even ridicule, because of the sumptuousness of their lives." (Emphasis ours.)

It appears that, in addition to "situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy," the Times allows the use of anonymous sources in situations in which writers would have to scrap a quote they like and find someone else to talk to.

Here's what the anonymous source revealed that the Times considered so essential:

Another Manhattan mother, whose children are 8, 6 and 16 months, said: "We've been doing it forever. We always go to Florida first, to warm up, and then go to Vermont where we have a house, for a winter vacation." The family divides its time equally, seven days in each place. First they head to Palm Beach to visit grandparents, then return to New York on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day "when everyone is happy," the mother said. "The planes are generally not as crowded, and there's a lot of positive energy."

From New York they will drive to Stratton Mountain, Vt., which they can reach in about four hours. "We don't pack anything," the woman said. "Everything's there. It makes a huge difference." A call to the caretaker ensures that groceries will be on hand, and the fantasy winter wonderland part of the vacation begins.

"My kids love it," the mother of three said, referring to their Florida-Vermont tradition. "They love their time with their grandparents, and we always invite friends to visit in Vermont. And our friends have kids, and we ski, and have bonfires at night under the stars and roast marshmallows."

Wow, that's controversial. Clearly the decision to grant anonymity to the source of such delicate and important information was warranted.

I have a feeling that this isn't about jealousy, as these anonymous women claim. After all, people who drive Mercedes SUVs, vacation in Palm Beach and send their kids to private school don't care who knows they're well-to-do.

If your lifestyle is so right and defensible and appropriate, why act like you're ashamed of it? If you're wealthy and living the high life while so many have so little and the gap between the rich and poor in this country is being widened almost daily by the Bush administration, why not be proud of that? Why not stand up and declare with pride your excesses?

It's more likely that this is about fear. Fear that poor people might read the story, find out how wealthy they are and decide to pay them a visit when they're not home.

But this isn't a rant against the wealthy. I'll save that for another day. This is about hacks masquerading as journalists. There are six sources used in the story, and FOUR are unidentified. The other three who are hiding their identities like the whistleblower discussed above all say the same insipid shit about their globehopping and how tiring tremendous wealth can be, yet all were granted anonymity. Because what they had to say was so important and newsworthy and couldn't be gotten any other way. At least not by reporters too lazy to find someone with enough balls to go on the record and editors who let them get away with such half-assed work.

But the paper's policy, at least the way it's being practiced, allows it, as long as readers are offered an explanation about why the source requested anonymity.

But it's not just about finding out why people are requesting anonymity, its about being judicious in your granting of it. It's not about providing window dressing for readers, it's about practicing journalism the right way. If you want to do your readers a service, don't provide cover for everyone who asks for it, as long as they offer an explanation, no matter how stupid or dubious, about why they want it.

The obligation journalists have, and apparently have not accepted, is to agree to protect the identity of sources in limited cases, such as when the source is providing information that's important for the public to know and can't be gotten any other way, AND the source has a reasonable expectation of retaliation if he/she were to be identified as the whistleblower.

Otherwise, you end up with ridiculous shit like this Times article and this, from the Washington Post:

Ironically, "Laguna Beach" airs on MTV and one of the MTV networks is VH1,
which, according to one of our sources who asked to remain anonymous
because they didn't want to be identified, was the other network bidding with E! on "The Simple Life" of late.

And dont' get me started on the use of "they" with "one."

This doesn't look like a paper, or an industry, that learned from its experiences with Judy Miller and Jayson Blair.

Thanks for the heads-up Susie.