By BOBBIE JO BUEL

When APME credibility committee members met in Louisville last fall, we all complained about unnamed sources in wire copy. It seemed to us that federal employees and national politicians hide under a blanket of anonymity that newspapers would never permit state house or city hall officials to use.

We decided to take a snapshot of the subject and to listen to what our wire-service providers have to say about anonymous sources. We didn't set out to pick a fight or to judge anyone based on a brief and informal wire check. Our goal was to start a discussion about our industry's standards and practices when it comes to unnamed sources. We found plenty to discuss with our wire providers — and lots to consider about what we require of our own newsrooms.

Here's how we started: Wire editors at several papers volunteered to flag unnamed sources in stories from The Associated Press, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, the New York Times News Service and the Washington Post. We checked one day in November and again in February. We turned up 46 stories on topics ranging from a stabbing at the Vibe Awards to an intelligence report on troop strength in Iraq.

A few things stood out and a few surprised us. Few stories explicitly told readers why a source was unnamed. The Iraq troop strength story, reported by the New York Times, came closest. It made clear that the intelligence report was classified. The Times also shared this important information about how it decided its sources were credible: "Details of the report and some of its verbatim findings were provided to The New York Times this week by four active duty or retired military officers in Iraq and Washington who have read the report or had it described to them."

Readers understand that military officers aren't supposed to discuss classified material, and that's why they're anonymous. But on the flip side, should this story have said why the officers told secrets to a reporter? Wouldn't readers be interested in knowing their motivation?

While few stories explained the need for anonymity, it's not difficult to guess at possible answers. The New York Mets "club official" who said the team was close to signing a contract with pitcher Kris Benson probably didn't want to look stupid if the deal fell apart. "An official close to the investigation" of the United Nations oil-for-food program probably would get chewed out by the boss if his or her name became public. Maybe the boss even forbids underlings from talking to reporters. The National Symphony musician who made negative comments about departing music director Leonard Slatkin probably didn't want his next leader to peg him as an employee who whines in public.

Even so, wouldn't these stories be more credible if they explained why the source was anonymous? Imagine if that Mets story said, "The club official sought anonymity because he doesn't want to look dumb if the deal falls apart." Would some reasons come across as so lame that newspapers would be embarrassed to even write them? Would it show that a newspaper didn't work hard enough to get the information on the record? If a government official is unnamed because his department head won't allow employees to talk on the record, wouldn't readers be interested in knowing that open government isn't so open at that agency?

While we went looking for anonymous sources, we were surprised to find so many that weren't even clearly identified as such.

The AP story about the ruckus at the Vibe Awards included this paragraph: "Many in the constantly feuding rap community speculated that longtime Dre antagonist Suge Knight, who attended the awards, arranged for Dre to get punched." Why are none of these "many" people named? Precisely how many is "many"? Should unnamed people ever be allowed to speculate?

An AP story on Japanese monetary policy said, "So far, most analysts remain relatively optimistic and don't think the economy is headed into another recession." The story doesn't name any analysts, leaving readers to trust that the reporter knows what "most analysts" think.

In fairness to the wire services, who among us hasn't printed stories with the phrases "some people say," "experts believe" or "critics complain"? Does your newsroom have a policy on this type of attribution? How many people is "some"? What makes them "experts"? Are the "critics" political opponents or constituents? Without more information, readers have no way to judge the credibility of these sources or their information.

The reporter on the Japan story could have called a market analyst and asked what other analysts were saying about the economy. The source might well have agreed with the reporter's conclusion, but wouldn't it be more credible coming from a named source with established expertise on Japan's economy?

One surprise was the number of sports stories with unnamed sources: 6. Our check then and on a few days since indicates that this may be a regular credibility issue in sports sections.

We found stories about players about to be traded or about to sign new contracts. We found stories on coaches about to be fired or about to be hired. An unnamed source said an injured player wouldn't be ready to play on Sunday. What is your newsroom's policy on this sort of unnamed sourcing in sports stories? Are your sports and news sections expected to meet the same standards?

Finally, a section of the Washington Post story on conductor Leonard Slatkin and the National Symphony raises questions about fairness and unnamed sources. The Post included this comment from an anonymous musician: "We'd play something like Mahler arrangements of Beethoven symphonies and it would be loud, crass and unbelievably ugly, and he just couldn't be bothered with making it better. All he'd say in rehearsal was, 'It'll be fine.' And after a while we knew that it just wouldn't be fine."

The musician is certainly knowledgeable about what it's like to perform with Slatkin. The musician has expertise to judge whether something is loud, crass and ugly. But how does the musician know that Slatkin "just couldn't be bothered with making it better"? It's a powerful quote, but is it fair? Does your anonymous sources policy say anything about personal comments?

Does it make any difference that the symphony issued a short news release about Slatkin's departure and then said he wouldn't be available for interviews? In other words, he passed on the invitation to say more, and perhaps respond to his unnamed critics.

After reviewing all of the stories flagged by local editors, the credibility committee sent all four wire sources copies and asked them to respond. Mike Silverman, managing editor of The Associated Press, and Philip Bennett, managing editor of the Washington Post, took us up on the offer. Read their comments here:

AP Managing Editor Mike Silverman's response to the spot survey

Washington Post Managing Editor Philip Bennett's response to the spot survey

Editor's note: Bobbie Jo Buel is chair of APME's credibility committee and executive editor at the Arizona Daily Star. Reach her at bjbuel@azstarnet.com. Editors at the Deseret Morning News, Kansas City Star, Des Moines Register, Arizona Daily Star and the Press-Enterprise in Riverside, Calif., conducted the wire check.