Anonymous sources: the divide between American and European journalism

For a non-American, it’s not easy to develop a personal opinion on the Judith Miller case and the subject of anonymous sources (see former posting). But the federal judge was not directly questioning the principles behind revealing anonymous sources. Rather he was applying the American law which states that any revelation of a CIA operative’s identity is a crime and that any means necessary in getting to the bottom of the crime are legal (even the negation of a fundamental journalistic principal). Two fundamental, yet contradictory principals arise, and it is not the first, nor the last, time that this will happen.

The first problem is that we cannot compare what is not comparable. It is wrong to relate the Plame scandal to Watergate. It is also impossible to say that 30 years after Watergate we are experiencing a regression. The American justice system would not have had anything to say if, for example there had been a “deep throat” revealing scandals in the Bush or Kerry presidential campaigns because there would not have been any legal grounds for doing so.

What is even more interesting is the anonymous source debate is the deep rift developing between American and European journalism. Take for example the “code of practice” laid out for British journalists (through the Press Complaints Commission). Article 14 says “Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.” Obviously, a “moral obligation” is not the same as a “legal obligation”, but the principal of anonymous sources has not been attacked by the British press nor the British judiciary system. On the continent, there are plenty of similar examples, even if continental countries have not drawn up a “code of practice.” In Europe, anonymous sources were questioned fifty years ago and are now accepted, the contrary of what is happening in America!

In the American press we see a growing mistrust of anonymous sources, even by American newspapers themselves. According to a survey conducted by the Associated Press, many American regional newspapers don’t even allow the use of anonymous sources, even those with important positions that risk losing their jobs by speaking out. New guidelines by the Washington Post and New York Times define very strict rules on the use of anonymous sources. The consequences of this won’t be felt immediately, but they will eventually end in a more conventional journalism, more rigid and sensitive to self-censorship.

Of course, I understand that scandals such as that of Jayson Blair (faked inquiries) or - still - Judith Miller (articles related to WMD in Irak) provoke journalists to limit their use of anonymous sources themselves. And newspapers were obliged to excuse themselves for allowing excessive use of anonymous sources!

But the pendulum doesn’t have to swing that far! So, what’s happening in the American press is a sort of “new moral order” based on an impossible transparency that investigative journalism is imposing upon itself. We hope that the pendulum will swing back and that a national shield law will soon protect American journalists. We also hope that the gap between the American and European press will close at the same time.