Comments on: Anonymous Sources at The New York Times http://messymatters.com/2009/04/01/anonymous-sources-at-the-new-york-times/ Bring Your Own Data Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:50:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Sharad Goel http://messymatters.com/2009/04/01/anonymous-sources-at-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Sharad Goel Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:45:53 +0000 http://messymatters.com/?p=152#comment-33 Achtung, some version of your conjecture is almost certainly true. The observed increase in sources who speak on "condition of anonymity" may result from attempts to provide context, justification, or standardization. Given the upward trend since 2000, however, I think it is less likely that such reporting changes were in response to the 2004 policy. To be clear, given the limits of my analysis, I doubt there was actually a threefold increase in the use of anonymous sources between 2000 and 2008. But I also think it is unlikely that the stricter policy halved the use of sources who requested anonymity. Achtung, some version of your conjecture is almost certainly true. The observed increase in sources who speak on “condition of anonymity” may result from attempts to provide context, justification, or standardization. Given the upward trend since 2000, however, I think it is less likely that such reporting changes were in response to the 2004 policy.

To be clear, given the limits of my analysis, I doubt there was actually a threefold increase in the use of anonymous sources between 2000 and 2008. But I also think it is unlikely that the stricter policy halved the use of sources who requested anonymity.

]]> By: Achtung Cyclist http://messymatters.com/2009/04/01/anonymous-sources-at-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Achtung Cyclist Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:46:17 +0000 http://messymatters.com/?p=152#comment-32 Failing to bring my own data, I will say that as reader, I noticed an increase in perfunctory explanations for anonymity under the new policy. Could it be that the number of anonymous sources did not change so much as the number of words devoted to introducing or rationalizing an anonymous source did? Failing to bring my own data, I will say that as reader, I noticed an increase in perfunctory explanations for anonymity under the new policy.

Could it be that the number of anonymous sources did not change so much as the number of words devoted to introducing or rationalizing an anonymous source did?

]]> By: Sharad Goel http://messymatters.com/2009/04/01/anonymous-sources-at-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Sharad Goel Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:01:00 +0000 http://messymatters.com/?p=152#comment-31 Mohammad, the number of articles per year in <em>The Times</em> does appear to be relatively stable over the last 20 years. The "null search" on the <em>NYT</em> archive returns between 80K and 100K articles in any given year since 1990 (about 250/day), with 2008 actually a low point. Mohammad, the number of articles per year in The Times does appear to be relatively stable over the last 20 years. The “null search” on the NYT archive returns between 80K and 100K articles in any given year since 1990 (about 250/day), with 2008 actually a low point.

]]> By: Mohammad http://messymatters.com/2009/04/01/anonymous-sources-at-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Mohammad Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:01:49 +0000 http://messymatters.com/?p=152#comment-30 Does the conclusion change if you normalize by the total number of articles? I imagine the total number of article hasn't remained constant over time. Does the conclusion change if you normalize by the total number of articles? I imagine the total number of article hasn’t remained constant over time.

]]> By: Sharad Goel http://messymatters.com/2009/04/01/anonymous-sources-at-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Sharad Goel Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:20:35 +0000 http://messymatters.com/?p=152#comment-29 Doug, I agree that the precipitous drop from 1998 to 2000 is likely due to the very real limitations of this quick and dirty method of analysis. Interestingly, though, the four phrases "condition of anonymity," "requested anonymity," "anonymous source," and your suggested phrase, "asked not to be identified" all increase two to threefold between 2000 and 2008, indicating at least some level of robustness. Given the myriad ways in which reporters refer to anonymous sources (e.g., "a senior State Department official", "a Democratic strategist", etc.), it seems quite difficult to mechanically measure use of anonymous sources. On a related note, a 2004 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/weekinreview/13bott.html" rel="nofollow">study</a> commissioned by the then Public Editor of <em>The Times</em>, Daniel Okrent, found a slight INCREASE in the use of anonymous sources after the stricter policy was instituted. This again suggests that quantifying the use of anonymous sources is quite sensitive to how exactly one defines and identifies anonymity. Doug, I agree that the precipitous drop from 1998 to 2000 is likely due to the very real limitations of this quick and dirty method of analysis. Interestingly, though, the four phrases “condition of anonymity,” “requested anonymity,” “anonymous source,” and your suggested phrase, “asked not to be identified” all increase two to threefold between 2000 and 2008, indicating at least some level of robustness. Given the myriad ways in which reporters refer to anonymous sources (e.g., “a senior State Department official”, “a Democratic strategist”, etc.), it seems quite difficult to mechanically measure use of anonymous sources.

On a related note, a 2004 study commissioned by the then Public Editor of The Times, Daniel Okrent, found a slight INCREASE in the use of anonymous sources after the stricter policy was instituted. This again suggests that quantifying the use of anonymous sources is quite sensitive to how exactly one defines and identifies anonymity.

]]> By: doug rivers http://messymatters.com/2009/04/01/anonymous-sources-at-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-28 doug rivers Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:28:36 +0000 http://messymatters.com/?p=152#comment-28 why the sharp drop between 1997 and 2000? It's hard to believe the use of anonymous sources tripled over this period, which suggests that the method of identifying anonymous sources might change with different editors. Do all three searches terms increase similarly? Do you get the same patterns if you search for "asked not to be identified" or "senior officials" or similar terms? p.s. great blog! why the sharp drop between 1997 and 2000? It’s hard to believe the use of anonymous sources tripled over this period, which suggests that the method of identifying anonymous sources might change with different editors. Do all three searches terms increase similarly? Do you get the same patterns if you search for “asked not to be identified” or “senior officials” or similar terms?

p.s. great blog!

]]>