Should the New York Times have published an anonymous op-ed by a “senior” administration official that was sure to send the president on a rampage? Was the author gutless not to sign it? Margaret Sullivan, media columnist for the Washington Post (she’d earlier held a similar position at the Times), has weighed in, saying “yes” to the first question and “possibly” to the second. But Sullivan was witty enough to look past these two obvious debate points into what she called a “quagmire of weirdness: fraught with issues of journalistic ethics and possibly even legal concerns.”
Let’s make this journalistic dilemma even knottier. We’ll suppose Sullivan gets her wish and the Post breaks the story—but would it be because the Post commands the loyalty of the one reporter uniquely positioned to surmise who the author is? That, of course, is Bob Woodward, who very likely interviewed the author as a secret source for his new White House exposé, Fear. Recognizing familiar themes and turns of phrase, Woodward could point his Post colleagues investigating the op-ed in the right direction. But would he? And should he? Woodward’s own stock in trade is promising and protecting confidentiality.
