No transparency hurts credibility

This story by The Salt Lake Tribune's political writer Dan Harrie commits a far-too-common journalistic practice that harms credibility and prevents the "marketplace of ideas" from functioning as it should. The story, about the Utah Republican primary election for the gubernatorial nomination, contains the following passage:

Parents for Choice has not yet endorsed a candidate in the primary, publicly saying voters would have the opportunity with either Huntsman or Karras to "elect a school choice governor." But in an e-mail shared with The Tribune, Executive Director Elisa Clements Peterson says Karras was only "lukewarm" on tuition tax credits and "it is obvious to us that Karras is not on the side of parental choice."

What Harrie fails to tell readers is who showed him the email. That kind of information is critical in stories about political contests, in particular, so readers can judge the credibility of ax-grinding sources and their information. As this particular email seems not to have been intended for publication, the reporter -- in the interest of transparency -- should have told readers who leaked it. This situation does not call for granting confidentiality to a source.