It seems that I can’t go two days the past few years without seeing some private or public official quoted in a news article “on condition of anonymity because they’re not authorized to speak to the press.” Why aren’t these people being fired and/or prosecuted? This question occurred to me when I read an anonymous official’s quote in an article about Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks.
In 90% of cases, they are speaking anonymously because their organization wishes to leak the information but doesn’t want to go on record with it officially. In 10% of the cases, the official is providing a low-value tidbit to develop or support a mutual-benefit relationship with the reporter.
How do you fire someone when they are anonymous? Even if it weren’t a fiction, the whole idea of remaining anonymous is so that people don’t know who you are, so you won’t get in trouble for what you said.
And, of course, the agency doesn’t know who it is that said this – they were anonymous, after all. And in most states, the journalist is protected by law from being forced to reveal the source.
The agency could start an investigation to try to find out who it was, but as friedo said, in many (most?) cases, they don’t really want to find the person.
That actually makes sense (as depressing as the hypocrisy is). Thanks! 
Because they’re anonymous.
In real life, do reporters even give a crap if you want to remain anonymous? On TV revealing your source is some unforgivable sin. In real life?
If you burn a source, you’ll never get information from them again. That’s especially painful if your anonymous source is an important person who might give an exclusive on-the-record interview at a later time. And if you have develop a reputation for naming your anonymous sources, it makes it far less likely that you’ll develop any new sources in the future.
That said, journalists will sometimes name formerly anonymous sources if the story is important enough to merit it, or if the source renegs on a deal.
Yes. If you’re known for revealing sources, you’ll find you have no sources ever again. New career time.
Real reporters have gone to jail for refusing to identify a source. It doesn’t get much more real than that.
As an aside, there is a huge case about the protection of journalistic sources going on right now in Canada.
We have a case in the Boston area where a college (I think it is) conducted interviews of IRA activists for a study and promised lifetime anonymity. Now the British Government is demanding names, and it looks like US authorities may go along with it. A fear is that releasing the names may result at minimum in jail for some or in the worst case deaths for others.
So I guess a question becomes - who exactly is authorized to offer anonymity?
I may not have all the facts exactly right but the jist is correct.
That’s interesting. I’ve never heard of this. Can you provide a link?
I thought that these studies never collected names in the first place. OTOH, they must have got a list from somewhere else if they were soliciting supposedly “known activists”.
Related, but hopefully, not too much of a hijack:
I read articles where it’s said “Off the record, he stated…”
If it’s off the record, why did it make in the newspaper?
No journalist should ever do that.
If you mean no journalist should ever identify by name someone who says something off the record, I agree.
But then there are the bad journalists. Remember… was it Connie Chung? She was speaking to somebody’s mom and said “Just between you and me…” and then the mom said some embarrassing stuff about her son, and the whole thing aired.
Are you sure you’re remembering that correctly? I would be astounded if that phrase appeared in any newspaper larger than the Country Bumpkin-Informer.
Here you go; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10irish.html
I thought I did. How’s that for a cite? 
In 1995, my alma mater Nebraska had an issue with girls assaulting football player’s fists with their faces. After one notorious instance, the media descended on Lincoln, led by CBS’s Bernard Goldberg. In the middle of a post-game press conference He asked our coach if the player assaulted his daughter, would he let them play again? The coach refused to answer as he resented the question.
Later, in the hallway, the coach was asked the same question. “Off the record? Yes, yes, I would”. That’s how it read the Lincoln newspaper. I’d dig up a cite, but am trying to figure out the Journal-Star’s archives. I don’t suppose “I swear I read that” counts as a cite? 
I found this, but it doesn’t exactly say “off the record”, just that they met outside privately.
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/sports-cornhusker-football-osborne-offended-by-query-1.302564