Recently, I have seen a trend towards explaining an anonymous source when citing him or her. This added “clause of clarification” is meant to assuage readers of the reliability of the source while maintaining the usual cloak-and-dagger appeal of an insider.
Check this juicy one out from the Washington Post, today:
Speaking about Bush’s move towards making the insurance world more transparent, though at a high cost,
An administration official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the budget in advance, said Bush is focused on both the deficit and medical costs. “He feels . . . there may need to be some additional investment to deal with the cost” of health care, the official said. “The overall gain, not only to the federal budget but the family budget, is worth that.”
Keep your eyes peeled.
