Anonymous sources

I'm not wholly against them, and have used them myself when I've trusted the source and felt the story was important. But the recent Washington Post story, in which anonymous Pentagon officials tried to smear a Rolling Stone reporter, claiming he printed "off the record" and untrue "facts" about General McChrystal, bothered me.

A lot of times, when we've run with something anonymous, it's because the source could face retribution if they went public. I somehow doubt that the Pentagon is fighting from a position of weakness, and thus needs to be protected. Bottom line: DOD screwed up, and now they're trying to smear the reporter who caught them. But they're not even brave enough to do it on the record. Adams Clymer, a former NYT reporter, wrote to the Washington Post about the incident today.

The Post should have told them to go on the record, or no story.