By MIKE SILVERMAN

April 13, 2005

	Mike Silverman

We're grateful to the APME credibility committee and to the wire editors who carried out the study of this vital issue.

AP views improper use of anonymity as a serious problem that threatens our industry's credibility. We're committed to being leaders in setting clear standards, making sure we abide by them, and in pressing newsmakers to be more willing to speak for attribution.

I circulated the entire file you sent me to all our news department heads, and, after everyone had a chance to read it, we met for a thorough discussion.

Our conclusions:

• AP's guidelines, as you say in your cover note, are very clear and serve us well when we adhere to them strictly. It's when we don't enforce them rigorously that we run into problems. We need to keep reviewing the rules and discussing them with our staffs so that they become second nature.

• AP doesn't always do a good enough job of explaining HOW an anonymous source had access to the information and WHY the source insists on anonymity. We intend to underscore the importance of these explanations with editors in all our news departments.

One recent example where we did tighten up comes from last Friday, when AP broke the story of Eric Rudolph's plea deal. Our first story attributed the information to "a source close to the case." We felt that wasn't good enough in explaining how the source might know the outcome, so we quickly recast it to say, "A person close to the case who was briefed by the Justice Department."

• The numerous examples of AP reporters quoting "political observers," "experts" and "analysts" can for the most part be avoided by one of two step:

— As you suggest, in some cases we should interview a couple of the experts or analysts so that we can quote them by name to back up the point.

In others cases, the reporter can make the point on his/her own, without relying on the crutch of "observers say." A recent example: In a story about a split among black leaders over the Terry Schiavo case, our reporter wrote "Political observers say that the case is a tricky one for some black leaders, who often take liberal stands on civil rights and other social issues but come out of a traditional religious background." In fact, the sentence reads better without the first four words, because the reporter is then speaking with a measure of authority: "The case is a tricky one for some black leaders, etc."

• Often we can find ways to convey important information without resorting to anonymity.

The Vibe awards story in the file is a particularly egregious example of anonymous opinion that clearly violates our standards: "Many in the constantly feuding rap community speculated that longtime Dre antagonist Suge Knight, who attended the awards, arranged for Dre to get punched."

In fact — as we've since discussed with the editor — there was a perfectly good way to make the same point. After the show, reporters, including an AP reporter, surrounded Knight backstage and besieged him with the very question: "Did you arrange for Dre to get punched"? And he gave a very thorough denial, on the record.

We could have written: "After the show, reporters asked longtime Dre antagonist Suge Knight backstage whether he had arranged for the punch. He denied any involvement in the attack. "One thing about me, if I do something, I'm taking responsibility," etc.

• Some uses of anonymity may pass all our tests and still not belong on the wire. That's because the long-term effects of too much anonymity, even if it meets our standards, undermine our credibility with readers. It's something we need to use sparingly and not for second-tier stories that we could live without. Terry Taylor, our sports editor, cites as an example some of the minor trade and transaction stories that her staff writes pegged to anonymous sources. She'll be looking hard at eliminating some of these.

• You say in your cover note that most AP stories "don't explain how the source knows the information is true."  That's actually a higher standard than we expect to be able to enforce in our reporting. Our rules do require that "the source is reliable and in a position to have accurate information."

• AP is in a great position to play a leadership role in the industry in fighting against the use of anonymity. One method is by refusing to run marginal or even good stories unless the source is willing to be quoted by name or until we can find other sources for the information whose names we can use. Another is by pressing for an end to some of the "background briefings" that have become a way of life, particularly in Washington. Sandy Johnson is taking the initiative in setting up a meeting of the Washington bureau chiefs with the White House press office on this issue. If we can make progress there, other critical agencies like the State and Defense departments may follow suit.

I hope this is helpful to the committee. Let me know if there's anything additional you need for your report. We look forward to further exchanges on this topic.

Sincerely,

Mike