I think you've got it correct about the motives of the source in seeking non-attribution by name. I can't really fault them except when they are just trying to tilt the pinball game without the lights and bells ringing: that is, meme creation, reputation mangling, ass covering, outright lying, and all the other usual abuses of anonymity.

I'd shift the responsibility to the journalist. If all they are doing is acting as a willing conduit, filling their story quota, or slanting the playing field, then they should be smacked down (preferably by their editors - do we still have those?).

Instead of just saying 'a high-placed administrative official who isn't authorized to speak on the record', a reporter with integrity should reveal possible other reasons for the statement and request for non-attribution. So, for instance, the reporter could add 'with longstanding ties to Karl Rove's inner circle' or 'a former spokesman for conservative action groups'.

There's always a frame around someone that reflects their past activities and associations, and some hints about this info would make the reporter less of a shill. If someone was a former attorney on Ken Starr's limitless investigation of Bill Clinton, the reader should be told of this in lieu of the actual name that could be googled to find their biases.

Less reporting, more groundless speculation and uninformed opinion-offering!

The problem remains that when you allow a source to lie through you YOU become the liar. It does not help to say you didn't know you were being lied to. It does not help to claim that they will not talk to you unless you allow them to lie through you.

If you really feel that you can't expose the liar I think you have 2 choices:
get multiple sources for every quote & if they don't all agree let us know - BTW you really should also bold & underline the fact that every ananymous tidbit could be a lie anyway.
OR
Make up your own quotes and pretend they are from Sr. White House staff. Hell it is not worse than printing their lies, it would be more fun & less work for you and there is no way the WH can claim they aren't true since you always protect your source. They might decide your lies are better, they might decide they have to be honest to stop you from telling lies and eith way your credability is damaged so there really is no down-side for you.

Ezra Klein:

But the judgment I've made is that my readers learn more even when the sourcing is anonymous then they'd learn if I decided to stop talking to officials on principal. It's not the optimal outcome, but it is, as far as I can tell, the best this site can do.

If by "not the optimal outcome" you mean "not nearly as credible as when sources are named", then I suppose that will be the best this site can do, unfortunately.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point. You were lied to by a source who used you, and by extension, your good reputation, to repeat those lies.

You did so. The lies were discovered to be untrue.

In response, you did nothing.

Now, you claim to agree with the general proposition that sources should be named. But, we are talking about you, not a general proposition. What are YOU going to do now that you know you were lied to and used to transmit those lies to your readers?

If you still plan to do nothing, then you obviously prefer to betray your readers trust in you instead of betraying a source who lied to you. Your choice.

When an Administration official is trying to get a message out that benefits the administration, there's no justification for using anonymous sources.

And if the sources you grant anonymity to lie to you, and you publish their lie, why would you continue to protect their identity?

http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/06/legacy-media-and-bloggers-alike-why-its-important-to-expose-sources-who-lie-to-you/

And so far as informing readers go, some sourcing is better than none.

Um, is it, actually? What you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter if what you report is true; all that matters is that you report something.

For my own part, I don't consider myself better informed when I'm lied to. In point of fact, I'm actually less informed after having been lied to than when I started.

I think some people need to google the definition of "lie." I can't for the life of me figure out how you can come to the conclusion that someone lied by dispensing completely accurate information.

Ezra gets taken to the woodshed by his readers here for becoming another conduit for BS from the White House...and rightly so.

Quoting one anonymous source without any background or related information is continuing the "gaming" of the press and the American public polished to perfection by Rove, Cheney and the other liars and criminals in the Bush White House!

If you value you your reputation as a solid source of real information Ezra, you owe your readers more then this feeble rejoinder!

"Quoting one anonymous source without any background or related information is continuing the "gaming" of the press and the American public polished to perfection by Rove, Cheney and the other liars and criminals in the Bush White House!"

Except, you know, that the information was completely accurate.

I figured the netroots was going to cocoon itself in the fashion of the right-wing at some point, but even I'm incredibly surprised at the rate they seem to be progressing.

so anonymous, who was right about the Obama administration not touching Social Security, Ezra's one source or Brooks multiple sources...all "anonymous"?

Just how is Ezra "completely accurate? These two reports seem to cancel each other out...can you read Obama's mind?

"so anonymous, who was right about the Obama administration not touching Social Security, Ezra's one source or Brooks multiple sources...all "anonymous"?"

Sorry, that was me. Anyway, I just worked out 600 words on it, so, with apologies Ezra, I don't really want to re-type it.

http://www.below-the-fold.com/index/2009/03/political-speak/

Shorter me: they're not really contradictory, in so much as there's nothing of any substance in what Brooks wrote. It's just meaningless political speak that leaves quite a bit of wiggle room, and i presented in a very vague manner. As opposed to what Ezra wrote which was, at least in one part, objectively accurate.

Part of the problem is the journalistic obsession with quotes. It's a way of dodging responsibility for the reporting. You can never be called to account for a quote that turns out to be bs - all you have to do is say "he really did say it". And you don't even have to do THAT if the quote was anonymous. Why don't you skip the quote and report what you have actually learned, and what you believe as a reporter to be true, instead of just repeating verbatim what someone else is telling you is true. If you are not going to do that, why don't we just set up a distribution system like PR Newswire for anonymous speakers. They can just say whatever they want and at least it will be obvious that they are saying it through an unvetted mouthpiece rather.

"so anonymous, who was right about the Obama administration not touching Social Security, Ezra's one source or Brooks multiple sources...all "anonymous"?"

Sorry, that was me. Anyway, I just worked out 600 words on it, so, with apologies Ezra, I don't really want to re-type it.

http://www.below-the-fold.com/index/2009/03/political-speak/

Shorter me: they're not really contradictory, in so much as there's nothing of any substance in what Brooks wrote. It's just meaningless political speak that leaves quite a bit of wiggle room, and i presented in a very vague manner. As opposed to what Ezra wrote which was, at least in one part, objectively accurate.

Part of the problem is the journalistic obsession with quotes. It's a way of dodging responsibility for the reporting.

What the hell do you think reporting is? If you're reporting on what's going on in the White House, what makes it anything other than random speculation if not those wretched quotes?

Then it comes down to the reporter/editor. If you suspect it's just bs, do you then not publish it? There's a reason why people laugh at Politico.

Mark Twain said:

"Its not what you don't know that hurts you. Its what you do know that ain't so."

Which says it all about anonymous sources.

I tend to agree with Greenwald that anonymous sources should be avoided. That said, I agree with Brien Jackson's evaluation of the Klein and Brooks quotes. There's very little basis to conclude that Ezra was lied to. More likely that Brooks was lied to. Most likely that Brooks was given a very vague, virtually contentless statement and he pushed it as far as he could to support the thesis of his column.

I wonder ... would some sort of editorial control help people go on the record? As in, "If I let you look at how I use your statement before print" - in a limited way, of course - "will you let me use your name?" That sort of deal brokering might help make a happy compromise.

This, right here? One of the several reasons I changed my major from journalism. Couldn't deal with the moral black hole.