Yesterday we wondered how the outing of Deep Throat might affect the swirling debate over anonymous sources. Not surprisingly, the gang seems to like 'em a whole lot more than they did two weeks ago.

Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee kept Felt's identity secret for over 30 years, and they're not going to let us forget that they were upholding a mighty oath, the oath that allowed the story to come out in the first place (especially since they were scooped so blatantly). The weight of history counts for a lot, and Bernstein invokes it to the NYT, saying that

This is a case history and a case lesson of why it is so important that we have confidential sources. If you were to look back at the original stories, I think hardly any of them had named sources. There's no way this reporting could have been done, nor is there any way that good reporting at a lot of places can be done, without anonymous sources.

(You may recall that Woodward went on record in support of anonymous sources in the WSJ just after Newsweek broke, stressing their extreme importance especially in the face of a "secret government.")

At the Washington Post, where the story started (if not ended), the editorial points out that, yes, it's important to multi-source, but still, when someone's got the goods, it matters that they be used:

In a small irony, Deep Throat's unveiling comes as the media and Washington officialdom engage in one of their periodic debates about the use of anonymous sources. We think that both the debate and the newly professed cautions about relying on such sources are healthy... But it's worth remembering that this landmark victory for the rule of law also depended on the secret patriotism of a source named Deep Throat -- that is, Mark Felt.

E&P makes a point that resonates today, especially after being told that we all ought to watch what we say and what we do:

Some observers, such as former Nixon White House aide John Dean, have claimed the Bush administration is even more secretive and anti-press than Nixon's White House. The need for careful anonymous sourcing appears to be more obvious than ever.

And reminders of a past era when even the president could not hide his misdeeds -- and a source could remain protected until he chose to come forward decades later -- prove again that reporters need not hold back a story just because the sourcing might draw attacks, as long as the news is correct.

It's worth remembering that the Newsweek imbroglio coincided with a survey indicating that a hefty chunk of the public mistrusted the use of anonymous sources and thought the government ought to be able to censor journalists. It will be interesting to see if the wider tide turns in favor of anonymous sourcing - or at least a greater appreciation of why it is used, and hopefully, what journalism is really about.