Times public editor Margaret Sullivan's crusade against the careless or sloppy or unjustified use of anonymous sources is going widely unheeded in the Times newsroom, to judge by what appears in the newspaper. The latest example comes in an arts section article about the National Academy Museum:
A former benefactor of the academy expressed concern that the changes would do little more than perpetuate an image of the institution — as an unstable place. "I don't see any long-range thinking about what to do," the former benefactor said.
This is a cheap shot, and in my opinion the paragraph should have been edited out. If the "former benefactor" is unwilling to speak with his or her name attached, how are readers supposed to assess the sentiments expressed, and how is the museum supposed to respond? The quote doesn't even include one of the usual fake explanations of anonymity. What would it have said? "The former benefactor, who insisted on anonymity because on some level he felt bad about publicly criticizing an institution that he once gave money to..."?