❊ TIME’s Mysterious Reporter

When I first read the TIME report of the interview with one of the accused of killing PM Hariri, this was how it was signed:

At the time, I remember assuming it was a co-reporter or perhaps an intern who helped with the research. But I remember thinking that it was weird that his/her name was withheld. I then suspected that because of the sensitive nature of the interview, this could be the actual reporter who did the interview, and the name is being redacted to shield him/her from the kind of inquiries that Lebanese officials are doing right now. Turns out that’s exactly was what happened.

Is that fair play from TIME? Should they have the right to withhold a reporter’s name? I’m hesitating, but I’m inclined to say no.

I understand the motive to protect a journalist’s sources. Reporters have always gone to great lengths to do so. They also do that out of self interest: If a reporter gets a reputation for keeping secrets (even if she had to go to jail for it), she is likely to get more scoops in the future because the next source will be confident that the reporter won’t reveal his identity. This is why I believe Nicholas Blandford would rather get out of Lebanon or go to jail than spill out the name of the person who conducted the interview with Hezbollah’s accused.

What I don’t get though is withholding the reporter’s name itself. I understand when this is being done to protect the reporter (or witness) from harm. Field reporters in dangerous places are often anonymous. But in a situation like today’s, this can make or break the credibility of a report. TIME is essentially telling us: “What we published was very disruptive, but you’re going to have to take our word for it.”

Withholding the name also plays into Hezbollah’s narrative: The west (with its institutions and media) is out to get us. Instead of having a credible reporter tell us that he spoke with the accused, we got a situation where an unnamed person spoke with another unnamed person. That is great fodder for conspiracy theorists.

Mr. Saad Hariri rushed into building a fiery statement on the back of the report, but even he ended up indirectly backtracking and allowing for the possibility that the report was fake.

This just can’t be helpful to anyone.