That major newspapers even have policies regarding anonymous sourcing is, for the most part, a complete joke. Every time the rules regarding unnamed sources get revised, reporters and editors spend a week following the new game plan before resorting back to their usual way of doing things, which is: quote, quote, quote away!

Rulebooks usually state that reporters should rely on identified sources as much as possible, but on the "off chance" they must use an anonymous source, they must give readers a good reason why the source isn't being named as well as explain why a source should be trusted. This rarely happens, and instead "top level" and "knowledgeable" sources pepper newspaper copy, with explanations that include "asked not to be identified for fear of ruining relationships." Ya don't say!

So, ever the muckraker, Slate's Jack Shafer had an intern turn on Google News Alerts (with some help from Factiva) for all instances of anonymity in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal. The result? A lengthy spreadsheet that rates anonymous source usage on a scale of "OK" to "awful," as well as noting who benefits from the quotations, the reporter or source. The takeaway? There's quite a bit of evidence that reporters often use anonymous sources to state the obvious, because doing so on their own would be sacrilegious! (Maybe the Associated Press' new policy will stop this?)

Below, shining examples of "awful" vs. "OK" anonymous sourcing.

• Wall Street Journal, Oil-Sands Firms Vie for Support, by Hyun Young Lee:

"The industry does a poor job of communication and trying to frame the issues, so the media focuses on what it wants, [such as] birds dying," said the former executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "There could be much more collaboration between companies and with the government. But they've all got all these different agendas."

Shafer: This is worse than some of the anonymously sourced sports coverage I've encountered.

Rating: Awful

• New York Times, Peacekeepers in Sudan lose 7 in ambush, by Lydia Polgreen

“It is just a free-for-all,” said a Western aid official in Sudan, speaking on the condition of anonymity because aid workers have faced retribution for talking publicly about the conditions in Darfur. “Security simply doesn’t exist.”

Shafer: War-zone exemption. Murderers everywhere.

Rating: OK

[Slate]