Waiting For Jamil, or Someone Like Him

Because you did indeed say it.

IMO, circumstances may make such a practice necessary. Circumstances like war. Both anonymous and pseudonymous sources can be crucial tools of the trade in getting out true stories which might never see the light of day otherwise. Without such (let's call 'em) literary devices as these to provide protection for truth-tellers, they might well be subject to repercussions should their identity become known.

That's either an obtuse and oblique defense of AP, or completely unrelated to the specific issue. This was not a "Deep Throat," which could not possibly be taken as anything but a personifying pseudonym. AP says they do not use pseudonyms, ever. (Your own mileage there!) Anonymous sources were not the subject--see your own comment title. Anonymous sources carry their own disclaimer simply by being anonymous--you KNOW you're depending on the reporter's own authority. You call the use of a pseudonymous source a "literary device," which device you quite clearly justify as a "crucial tool" in "getting out true stories which might never see the light of day otherwise."

And that defense falls flat in the face of the case specifics, which is the topic of the post. It wasn't a true story, and AP maintains that "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" is a real and legitimate named source, albeit one that no one else can find, including his purported employer. They also maintain that the story was true and properly sourced--even though they've changed it several times without ever issuing a correction, which is also contrary to their own guidelines.

The reason it was important to review the ethics of using pseudonymous sources should be obvious--it's the least of the journalistic "sins" that could explain AP's actions, and one they may well attempt to use, citing just the defense you offered. "We couldn't use his real name because of potential repercussions."

Their current stance of standing by a demolished story and a non-existent source as gospel journalism, done by the book, has been completely shredded.

I don't apologize for not being psychic, Brian. You should know that by now. The post is about a specific case of a non-verifiable named source used over five dozen times by AP, that was "tagged" as a phantom when the story he/it (gender of the imaginary?) was used for was exposed as near-pure fiction. It's not in the least unreasonable to assume you're speaking of the specific rather than the general when you comment on the specific!

The use of pseudonymous sources when not clearly labelled as such is simply not defensible. It's clearly and completely unethical. This is not a Deep Throat* we're talking about here. In this case (and you will please note that the post is about a very specific case) the potentially pseudonymous source is not noted as such, has been used as a named source several dozen times, and AP has repeatedly claimed him as being the person named. Pseudonymous or fictional, the source was presented as having credibility related to being a named (implying findable and verifiable) official source with an official position and title implying a reasonable assurance of accuracy. And said source doesn't seem to exist.

Given the choice between beleiving CENTCOM, which won't say anything they don't know to be backed up and thus often providing incomplete reports, or believing AP, CENTCOM wins. Their press releases may be incomplete and not come out for a few days after the fact, but they're always verifiably sourced.

[*--Let's note that the pseudonym "Deep Throat" was never used by Woodward and Bernstein in their Washington Post article series on Watergate. It was a literary invention for their 1974 book on Watergate. "Deep Throat," one anonymous source among many they used in the WaPo series, was always referred to in the articles with the usual conventions such as "an administration official said," etc.]