COM 209: Anonymous sources and ethics

Of all that's been written so far about the "Scooter" Libby trial, media critic Howard Kurtz' column in today's Washington Post tells perhaps the most about how political reporters and their sources feed off of each other. It came in his account of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller's testimony about relationship with Libby as a journalist who granted anonymity to a news source.

"Throughout the afternoon," said Kurtz, "an unspoken question hung in the air: What do journalists give up when they agree to protect high officials in exchange for juicy information?"

I'll answer it. If they're not careful, their reputation for integrity is what they give up.

Here's how Miller's testimony went:

In a steady but slightly nervous voice, Miller described how her relationship with Libby began: with a bit of flattery. In their first meeting in the Old Executive Office Building, Miller recalled Libby saying that "he liked my reporting on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism." Libby's only quibble was that he had never received an inscribed copy of "Germs," a book on bioterrorism that she coauthored. Miller said she apologized for the oversight.

Gazing through rimless glasses at prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Miller, 59, described one of the most common transactions in journalism: how the contours of the reporter-source relationship are defined.

When she "expressed a desire" for regular conversations, Libby said "he would prefer not to see his name in print," Miller said. "We could continue meeting as long as I would identify him as an administration official or senior administration official." She readily agreed.

That kind of arrangement is common. It's known as speaking "on background," which means the source speaks with the reporter to give her (or him) background but not "on the record," or for for direct quotation. So reporters negotiate what they'll call the source in print -- the idea is to give enough information to let readers decide on the source's credibility but not to identify the source by name. (There's a fine and sometimes-not-very-subtle art involved in guessing who somebody else's anonymous source is, by the way. You ask yourself who would know that information, and then who would have the most to gain by leaking it. It's fun, and any number can play.) Anyway, Miller and Libby talked with each other on background.

Kurtz continues:

At a meeting in Libby's office in June 2003, Libby seemed "agitated and frustrated and angry," not to mention "annoyed," Miller said. He was concerned that the CIA, through a "perverted war of leaks," was distancing itself from its prewar intelligence about Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons.

So Libby would combat these leaks by leaking to Miller, she explained in a tone that indicated this was the most natural thing in the world. Miller said he told her that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who was challenging the administration's account that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium in Africa, worked for "the bureau" -- prompting Miller to put a question mark in her notes until she realized that Libby meant the CIA.

During a two-hour meal at the St. Regis hotel the following month, Miller said, Libby changed the ground rules and went "on deeper background," asking to be identified only as a "former Hill staffer."

That phrase "deeper background" refers to another fine and not-so-subtle art: There's "background," and then there's "deep background," which is like "background" but with the identification more general so it's harder to play the Washington (or Statehouse) guessing game. When I took information on "deep" background in my reporting days, I'd run it with no identifying information at all. Or I would use something cheesy like "speculation at the Statehouse is ..." But I tried to not to it at all, or to use the background information to get somebody else to talk about it on the record.

But look what Libby and Miller did with it -- it's true Libby is a "former Hill staffer," which means in English he once worked for Congress, i.e. on Capitol Hill. But when he spoke with Miller, he was speaking about things we knew from working with the White House, not Congress. It's true to identify him that way, because he did have a Congressional staff job a number of years ago, but it's misleading. It may be a small point, but it's important. When she let Libby get away with pointing her readers in the wrong direction, in my mind, is when Miller stepped over a bright ethical red line.