While searching for the WAPO Ombudsman's email address I stumbled upon
this timely and ironic column from November 6, 2005, titled "Deep Background, Deep Controversy", who knows if she knew of the events that would unfold in the following weeks. It contains various relevant assertions, the first of which is this:
Anonymous sources, always controversial, have become even more so since the CIA leak case, in which several reporters gave information about such a source -- I. Lewis Libby -- that resulted in his indictment on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury, and his resignation as Vice President Cheney's chief of staff.
Confidential sources are a staple of Post reporting, although the rules on how they are used have been tightened. The Post is among many newspapers and media outlets trying to rein in the use of anonymity, feeling that credibility suffers when readers don't know who sources are or what their agenda might be.
Credibility sure does suffer, especially when someone with direct involvement in the case makes claims on the validity of said case, without disclosing his involvement.
I must say, reading this article I got the impression that she was not aware of Woodward's situation, of course that's just my intuition.
The next assertion is this:
The Post adopted new anonymous-source guidelines in February 2004. The first sentence: "The Washington Post is committed to disclosing to its readers the sources of the information in its stories to the maximum possible extent." I will be happy to send anyone a copy, and the guidelines will be available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ . The Post has been criticized for not always following its guidelines, and that is an area for an ombudsman's scrutiny.
I hope she takes that to heart and is not influenced by any previous standing that Woodward had at the post or any resistance she may encounter from inside or outside individuals.
Finally, and most importantly, is this:
As a reporter and editor, I have used anonymous sources. As an editor, I insisted on knowing who the sources were. And I deeply dislike anonymous attacks. The Post's rules say that editors must know and trust reporters' sources.
This is just the first column I'll write about anonymous sources. I'd like to hear from readers and journalists -- and public officials -- on this topic.
Admittedly Woodward DID NOT tell his editor of his source until just a month ago. After repeatedly and publicly attacking the investigation, Woodward has serious ethical questions to answer. Not to mention the OBVIOUS fact that,contrary to White House promises, everyone in the administration was NOT cooperating with the investigation. To elaborate on the obvious, if they were cooperating Woodward would have been able to testify long ago. The fact that Woodward has information on the administration official that has knowingly misled the public is a question that we need to demand an answer for. Lest we forget what journalist's are in our great democracy for.