I found this paragraph interesting in today’s New York Times’ story on the drone program.
Consider the level of detail explaining why the Times was identifying officials, despite a government request not to do so. The paper saw it as allowable
because they have leadership roles in one of the government’s most significant paramilitary programs and their roles are known to foreign governments and many others.
It’s a gutsy move from a news organization that often abides by these kinds of requests, and the level of detail offered explaining the paper’s reasoning underscores this. It demonstrates that the needs of the readers come first while signaling that the decision was a deliberate and thought-out one.
So kudos to the paper, though I should point out that this also sets its mixed record on unnamed sources. This level of explanation should accompany every use of an unnamed source — as should the implied level of discussion. That the Times — and far too many other papers — fails in this regard remains a major problem with the modern reporting process.
Hank Kalet 