How many anonymous sources are too many? Jonathan Landay's articles on Iran are chock-full of juicy quotes from anonymous sources. Take his latest article entitled "Bush defends Iran policy amid doubts on new U.N. sanctions."
From paragraph 2: Several U.S. officials and experts, however, said .... (no U.S. officials are actually named in Landay's article.)
From paragraph 3: "A new resolution is going to be very hard to get, if not impossible," said a State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
From paragraph 9: Two other U.S. officials indicated .... (these officials are not named.)
From paragraph 10: "One of the big things that has been a glaring omission (in U.S. policy) is the lack of face-to-face, even quiet, secret, negotiations," said one U.S. official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
From paragraph 11: "We might get to a point where that would be true, but we're not there yet," said an administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
Using unnamed sources like this does a disservice to McClatchy's readers. If I knew who these unnamed officials are, it might help me evaluate how much trust to place in them. Did they work on John Kerry's campaign in 2004? Is it possible they are angling for a position in a Clinton Adminsitration? Are they long-time Democrat donors taking this chance to stick it to a Republican President they despise? Have these officials previously made claims that support President Bush's position? We don't know, and Jonathan Landay doesn't want us to know.
