When I browse the Public Editor’s column in the Sunday Times, I’m generally impressed with his ability to direct substantive criticism at his own employers. On Sunday, Mr. Hoyt observed,
Despite written ground rules to the contrary and promises by top editors to do better, The Times continues to use anonymous sources for information available elsewhere on the record. It allows unnamed people to provide quotes of marginal news value and to remain hidden with little real explanation of their motives, their reliability, or the reasons why they must be anonymous.
Will criticism from the Public Editor carry more weight than written ground rules or promises from top editors? Heck if I know.