Petty Journalism at the Times

An article in today's New York Times explores the tensions in the Washington Post newsroom following Bob Woodward's stunning revelation about his involvement in the Plame affair. About halfway through the article, the following passage appears:

A confidential internal memo board at The
Post lighted up yesterday with comments
that Mr. Woodward's withholding of
information would hurt the credibility of
other Post reporters.

"This is the logical and perhaps inevitable
outcome when an institution permits an
individual to become larger than the
institution itself," read one of those
confidential postings, written by Jonathan
Yardley, a veteran staff writer.

When contacted about the posting, which
was e-mailed to The Times by a Post
reporter, Mr. Yardley objected strenuously
to its being made public. In the posting, he
wrote that he expected that this episode
might prompt the paper to re-examine
"the star system and its attendant risks."

Can you believe that? The Times not only printed the contents of a posting that was made on a confidential memo board, but they also printed the name of the poster, over his strenuous (and totally understandable) objections. First, it's hard to see how the name of the reporter adds much to the newsworthiness of the piece. Couldn't they have just printed the content of the posting and not its author's name? Second, notice how they got their hands on the posting. It was emailed to them by another Post reporter. But do they print his/her name? No. That person is granted anonymity. I'm not a journalist by training, so for all I know, this is a perfectly acceptable journalistic practice, but it strikes me as petty and unprofessional. One thing is now certain: the Post's confidential memo board has been rendered totally useless. No one is going to post anything now for fear it will end up--with full attribution--on the pages of their rival paper.