As 2016 election coverage ramps up, political reporters are sure to be assailed by requests for “backgrounders,” interviews or information from sources that cannot be identified by name.
But reporters at The New York Times should resist these unattributable tidbits when they come along, according to that paper’s standards editor. Margaret Sullivan, the public editor of the Times, quoted associate managing editor for standards Philip B. Corbett as saying the paper should do more to combat the practice:
The simple answer: yes. We should be pushing back more. Not just political reporters and editors, but Washington reporters, Albany and City Hall, business reporters, all of us. I think most of us agree with that in principle, but it can be harder than you think in the crush of daily coverage, deadlines, competitive pressure and the need to develop useful sources. That’s not an excuse, but those are real challenges.
Sullivan concurs, adding that the paper’s journalists have a responsibility to eschew unattributable information given the Times’ relative prominence.
What’s more, The Times has a special obligation here. It will be harder for sources to tangle with The Times than with smaller news organizations. So Times journalists should help to lead the way.
Sullivan has long monitored the paper’s sourcing practices and has been a perennial advocate for more transparent sourcing at The New York Times. She has occasionally met with some resistance from New York Times journalists, who have insisted that background and anonymous sourcing allows the paper to give readers a more candid look at delicate matters. Carolyn Ryan, Washington bureau chief at The Times, defended a background quote last year in one of Sullivan’s columns:
We always try to avoid anonymous quotes, and we certainly do not permit people to make ad hominem attacks on another individual’s character under cloak of anonymity. In this story, we were aiming for a candid assessment from Democrats about the effect the president’s unpopularity would have on Democratic chances in midterm elections.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple reported Monday that New York Times Los Angeles bureau chief Adam Nagourney was airing background information from Hillary Clinton campaign emails on Twitter.
