On the other hand, if a source will provide information only if allowed to remain anonymous refusing to grant it might deprive readers of important but incomplete information.

  Necessarily decisions in this regard must be case-by-case, unless an absolute  policy of no anonymity is adopted. The very thing we cherish most- the independence and diversity of the press --  no doubt  causes these case-by-case decisions to be based at least in part on factors apart from the intrinsic value of the information. If Reporter A knows that if he  (or his superiors) refuse to grant anonymity someone else likely will then the reporters "personal" stake in the game can skew the decision-making. the competition thus can lead to ever declining "standards" for acceding to a request for anonymity.

   The "pseudonym" idea while perhaps not a bad one would make only a slight difference. Sources are not limited to one channel for their assertions. How would it be possible to have ONE pseudonym for the same anonymous person delivering information through several channels? how would we know that ABC's Source A isn't CBS's Source QQ? It would seem that providing enough information to determine whether a single source is providing information through multiple channels would likely be tantamount to revealing enough for people to figure out the identity of the person and would not be done.

  Maybe a more likely positive outcome of assigning pseudonyms than allowing readers to assess the credibility of the sources is allowing readers to assess the judgment of the people granting anonymity. If we know that a news organization returns to an A/S who previously provided it with dubious informaton that tells us something important.

   In any event, the proposal is extremely unlikely to ever be adopted because sources would not like it.  In many contexts the fixed pseudonym itself even at one news outlet would allow for friend and foe to figure out who is the source over time. Because different but overlapping  sets of people have access to information at different times on different issues. Eventually, Source A is going to be identifiable. If 20 people know about "Incident A" and 10 people know about "Incident B," but only  5 of them are the same people, when "Incident C" comes along and only one of those 5 people is in the loop the mask is gone.

   It's also necessary to understand that often the "anonymity" is only with respect to the public. Very often the "players" know exactly who is the "DOD source involved in the discussions" or the "WH source at the meeting" and it's not so much a need to protect anonymity so one can provide "important" information but rather a way of fighting political battles and waging power struggles with the help of friendly reporters. When an anonymous source provides the information that the President is displeased with an appointee or that the VP's office is opposed to a policy proposal this is much more in the way of sending a message to other politicos and preparing the public for the coming decision than providing information. Reporters are to a large extent carrying water for politicians.

  Finally, I want to make sure no one thinks that because THIS ISSUE of reporters granting anonymity to sourcesd known to them raises important issues that I think it is in any way, shape or manner makes the issue of whether blogs choose to require people to provide names in order to post is an important one. If blogs want to do that fine, if not fine. It really has no discernible effect on anything, but REPORTERS CONVEYING NEWS have an entirely different set of concerns than a blog owner letting people give their opinions  about the news.

Dems for Dehumanization

Here's a selection from an exchange in the comments section over at DailyKos.com. The readers, identified by their screen names, are responding to a post by proprietor Markos Moulitsas bashing Joe Lieberman:

OneCrankyDom: "Once we lock up a Majority where we don't need Lieberman, I hope they will kick him to the curb like the dog he is."

Dump Terry McAuliffe: "He's a much lower form of life than a dog. Weasel seems about right to describe him--if you're kind enough to afford him vertebrate status."

Sharon Jumper: "Don't insult dogs like that. Given a choice between my dog and Lieberman, I'd gas him without thinking twice."

TeresaInPa: "Sharon, jeez. I know you didn't mean it that way, but a reference to gassing a Jew needs to be hidden."