Facing a public skeptical of the credibility of unnamed sources, some news organizations have issued revised guidelines on attribution. Those rules typically require that stories make it clear why the unnamed sources who are being cited have been granted at least some measure of anonymity — and urge the disclosure of at least some information about the source. (See related story.) Recent stories citing unnamed sources in The Washington Post and The New York Times produced an interesting array of such explanations:

“Because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance” — a senior EPA scientist (Times, June 8)

“Because the matter involves classified material and is in litigation” — a former administration official (Times, May 29)

“Because he was contradicting a department decision and feared reprisal” — a Homeland Security official (Post, May 26)

“To protect his relationship with the chairman” — a Republican lobbyist with close committee ties (Post, May 22)

“To preserve relationships with interested parties who had not yet been briefed” — aides to Gov. George E. Pataki, R-N.Y (Times, May 12)

“Because of lack of authorization to speak publicly” — a source familiar with the matter (Post, May 10)

“Because he did not want to be identified as taunting Moscow” — a senior Bush administration official (Times, May 6)

“In order to speak candidly” — a senior White House aide (Post, April 29)

“Because he did not want to be viewed as critical of the leadership” — a senior Republican official (Times, April 27)

“For fear of losing his job” — an Iraqi Oil Ministry official (Times, March 26)

“Because he is not involved in the case and thus felt it was inappropriate to comment on the record” — a law enforcement official (Times, March 25)

“For fear of offending their prospective boss” — World Bank staffers (Post, March 18)

“So as not to overshadow his boss” — a senior White House aide (Times, March 9)