911 MEDIA

Slate: How Far Can You Trust Anonymice?
Reading the week's leakiest stories.

trust all leakers and anonymous sources—I trust them to give a selective account that will benefit them, one that pleases their patrons and screws their enemies. Telling the truth, I guarantee you, ranks very low on most leakers' list of motives.

Not every anonymously sourced article is suspect, but every anonymously sourced article invites the reader to ask why the reporter agreed to camouflage his source and what hidden agenda might be operating.

For instance, yesterday's New York Times extended the protective coloration of anonymity in a very dubious fashion to a Saudi official in David Johnston's "Official Says Qaeda Recruited Saudi Hijackers To Strain Ties." The Saudi official alleges that Osama Bin Laden told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of 9/11's architects, to recruit Saudis for the attacks because their presence would injure U.S.-Saudi relations—"they wanted to strike Saudi Arabia as much as they wanted to hit the United States." The Saudi claims American officials told him this after the capture and interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but he doesn't name the American officials.

Why, exactly, should the New York Times allow a Saudi official to advance such a hearsay story, one without a shred of confirmation from any corner, without requiring him to put his name to it? (Prince Bandar, is that you?) Like all anonymously sourced articles, this piece should be met with a barrage of doubting questions. Who benefits from this story? How good is the information? What motive might the leaking source have for giving the story? Obviously, the Saudis benefit from the story because it makes them "victims." Reporter Johnston benefits, too. His Saudi source owes him a future draft pick or something for getting the self-serving story into print.