Last week, The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed from "a senior official in the Trump administration" that questioned President Donald Trump's ability to govern and said "many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." The writer also characterized Trump's "leadership style" as "impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."
The op-ed of course led to a furor and widespread speculation about who the author was.
In a tweet, President Trump attacked the "Failing New York Times," questioned whether the op-ed's author existed and called on the paper to reveal the "GUTLESS anonymous person."
The Times' opinion editors acknowledged in a note with the op-ed that their decision to use such an anonymous op-ed was unusual, but added, "We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers."
Within days, the Times was deluged with nearly 23,000 queries on how it came to use the piece, which its op-ed editor James Dao answered a few days after the op-ed appeared.
Others have tried to suss out the motives of the author. Was he or she trying to excuse his or her involvement with the Trump administration? Was it just ego? Was it an attempt to warn the public?
If there is a group of insiders trying to shield the president from his worst instincts, could publication of the op-ed undermine that effort? What purposes might it have served and what impact could it have, for good or ill?
Our editorial board roundtable offers its thoughts and we welcome yours in the comments.
Chris Quinn, president and editor, cleveland.com:
The bar for publishing an anonymous op-ed is high, and nothing I've seen justifies doing so here. I question the motive of the writer. Is this piece aimed at rebuilding his or her reputation after Trump leaves the White House? If the writer truly is trying to thwart's Trump's rash decisions, doesn't publishing this piece counteract that aim? Finally, by taking this unusual step, I think The New York Times feeds the misguided notion that is popular in some circles that the media is irresponsible and out to get the president.
Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:
The duty of journalists, and the mission of journalism, a celebrated journalism professor taught, is to explain how things really work. The Times op-ed does that. It explains how the Trump presidency really works -- no thanks to the president.
Ted Diadiun, editorial board member:
There is no high ground to be claimed here -- the Times' inarguable, corporatewide animus regarding President Trump, and the inability of anyone to dispute the claims of what an anonymous person might or might not have experienced in the White House, combine to rob this deplorable decision of credibility except from those who already have decided to believe any negative thing written about this administration. Allowing the author to fire such serious charges anonymously from the tall grass does not allow us to assess the accusations, and serves only to brand him/her as a coward, while sowing further mistrust and discontent on both sides of the political divide.
Victor Ruiz, editorial board member:
We currently have a president who acts as if he is above the law, and his beliefs and rhetoric are dangerous to many. Many in Congress acquiesce, and our Supreme Court is at risk of becoming his rubber stamp. I applaud The New York Times for having the courage to act and for staying committed to its responsibility of being part of our checks and balances. I also remind the rest of us of the following: "If you are neutral in times of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." (Desmond Tutu)
Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:
While it may be comforting to know that people within the Trump administration are protecting us from his worst inclinations, it's time for them to stand up and be recognized. To hide behind the cloak of anonymity, when Americans desperately need "the adults in the room" to remember that duty to country comes before party fealty, is both cowardly and self-serving. Think beyond the next election and end this madness.
Eric Foster, editorial board member:
Anonymous sources are a pretty standard thing in news reporting. I don't see much of a distinction between Bob Woodward reporting "according to anonymous sources" and the Times allowing an anonymous source to present a first-person account. You either trust the reporter to do his/her job or you don't. This narrative will not change a person's position on whether they trust the media.
Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:
The Gray Lady set aside her mantle of wisdom to become Anonymous' mistress. A "trusted intermediary" fixed them up on a date. Anonymous needed America to know that he (or she) bravely endures an irascible boss and toxic environment in his (her) tireless fight to save democracy. But a revealed identity would endanger the salvationist mission (and a paycheck). The Gray Lady agreed: Anonymous, hero and victim, must be protected. Like a bamboozled mistress, the Gray Lady trusted Anonymous to be truthful. But a senior official in the Trump administration, who feigns loyalty while deceiving the president and then hides behind a veil of anonymity, is a spineless self-aggrandizer, not a trustworthy source. In her desperation to destroy President Trump, the Gray Lady sacrificed a piece of her soul for a tawdry one-night stand with Anonymous.
Have something to say about this topic?
* Use the comments to share your thoughts. Then, stay informed when readers reply to your comments by using the "Follow" option at the top of the comments, and look for updates via the small blue bell in the lower right as you look at more stories on cleveland.com.
* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.
* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments on this editorial board roundtable to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.