An front-page Times article about a London neighborhood in which many homes are owned by wealthy foreign buyers who live elsewhere for much of the year includes X sources. They are:
- "Alistair Boscawen, a local real estate agent"
- "A Belgravia resident from Columbia... [who] asked that her name not be used because, she said, she was scared of the Russians on the corner."
- "Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of the Labour opposition in Westminster Council."
- "The salesclerk at a Belgravia clothing boutique, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity because she did not want to get in trouble."
- Naomi Heaton, chief executive of London Central Portfolio
- Yolande Barnes of Savills
- "An American who lived for 20 years in a multimillion-dollar apartment in Belgrave Place and who did not want her name used for fear of alienating her old neighbors."
Seven sources, three of them anonymous.
This isn't an article about some National Security Agency wiretapping program. It's a feature about some wealthy London neighborhood. If some salesclerk or neighborhood resident doesn't want to be quoted by name, can't the reporter find one who will, or just leave the anonymous source out of the article?
The Times written policy on the use of anonymous sources states:
In routine interviewing – that is, most of the interviewing we do – anonymity must not be automatic or an assumed condition. In that kind of reporting, anonymity should not be offered to a source. Exceptions will occur in the reporting of highly sensitive stories, when it is we who have sought out a source who may face legal jeopardy or loss of livelihood for speaking with us…. We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available…We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is.... Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment.
This neighborhood profile doesn't seem to meet the test of being a "highly sensitive" story, nor do the three anonymous sources seem to face loss of livelihood or legal jeopardy. Named sources are readily available, and the comments in some of the cases are either speculative (but non-newsworthy, e.g., "I think they spend most of their time in Palm Beach,") or trivial, (e.g., "I was kind of excited when a Russian family moved in across the street.") So the article seems to violate the Times written policy on anonymous sources in multiple ways.