'NYT' Editors Respond to Readers' Queries on McCain/Lobbyist Article

By: E&P Staff Responding to a tide of response, much of it negative, to its bombshell report linking John McCain to a female lobbyist, Vicki Isenman, The Times' editors on their Web site last night solicited queries from readers that would be put to those involved with the piece.

The first replies started appearing today. Executive Editor Bill Keller stated, "Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site). I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.

"And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story. Perhaps here, at the outset of this conversation, is a good point to state as clearly as possible our purpose in publishing."

More will roll out at www.nytimes.com. Here is the interesting exchange on anonymous sourcing, featuring Managing Editor Jill Abramson.
*

Q. Why did The New York Times not follow its own most-recently publicized rule on sourcing in its stories? As I understand the policy is that The New York Times will only use unidentified sources as a last resource and if it needs to do so it will at least give a reason why these sources have to remain anonymous. This article in The New York Times did neither. Why?

? Guillermo Martinez, Miami

Q. There are numerous unnamed sources and a large number of "staff" or "campaign" officials who are quoted or used as references in this story. Has The New York Times exceeded good judgment by having absolutely no named individuals corroborating this story? What procedures did the editors use to ensure that these stories were not the work of a small number of individuals who conspired to embarrass Mr. McCain or The New York Times?

? Frank Baitman, Baltimore

A. We have received lots of questions on the use of anonymous sources in the story and these two are representative of many of them.

It is always preferable to have named sources in stories. In 2003, The Times tightened its standards for anonymous sourcing and appointed a standards editor to the masthead. In the case of our McCain story, Times standards were followed and senior editors knew the identities of the sources for the story, who provided detailed and consistent accounts about their concerns about the senator's relationship with a Washington lobbyist. On many important stories, especially on controversies involving Washington politics and policy battles, sources request anonymity for different reasons. Some fear retribution, including loss of their positions. Some are motivated by a desire to share sensitive information that they deem in the public interest but fear disclosing their identities for a variety of reasons. Others have less selfless reasons.

Much as we prefer on-the-record (or even documentary) information, and editors and reporters push hard on sources to let us use their names, without the ability to protect sources newspapers would not have been able to report on important activities of the government and other powerful institutions, and political reporting would be much more a kind of event-driven stenography.

Our mission is to inform our readers, which includes giving as much information as possible about sources. Our new standards require that when we use anonymous sources we disclose and publish as much as we can about their backgrounds and motivations. In the McCain story we had named sources and anonymous sources. We disclosed as much about them as we could. In the case of two anonymous sources, the story said, "The two associates, who said that they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others."

The potential bias of "disillusioned" sources was carefully weighed against their accounts. The sources corroborated one another without orchestration, an issue, among others, that our team meticulously investigated. During the long process of our reporting on the story, we attempted, time and time again, to persuade our sources to go on the record and let us use their names. Again, there are named sources in the story but some sources continued to insist on maintaining the cloak of anonymity. As we neared publication, both the editors and the reporting team once again tested the veracity of these sources to make sure every fact in the story was accurate. We were all fully satisfied.

? Jill Abramson, managing editor