Bob Meyer, a friend who is a loyal and long-time reader of the New York Times, left an angry message on my voice mail:

“I’m canceling my subscription. I’ve had it.” He didn’t say why, but I could easily guess: the recent “smear” of Sen. John McCain.

I’ve got nothing to do with the New York Times, but as a longtime journalist, I guess that I qualified as a target for Bob’s anger. Bob’s not an ideologue; he loathed Newt Gingrich and disdains most politicians of whatever party. But the serious journalistic faults of the paper’s front page and weakly attributed report of McCain’s alleged affair with a lobbyist were obvious even to the layman.

Having more than 30 years of journalism experience as reporter, editor, editorial board member and op-ed columnist for three Chicago dailies—the Tribune, Sun-Times and Daily News—I’ve got to agree. Unfortunately, I suspect, most of my colleagues don’t, writing off the attacks as inspired by the usual right-wing animus against the paper.

Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson defends the paper’s decision to go with the softly sourced story here. Her defense is appalling, self-satisfied and naďve. Sadly, it’s rather typical of today’s political reporting. And it’s evidence that the industry needs to set a higher standard for using anonymous sources during political campaigns.

Simply put, that standard should be: Don’t use them. Ever.

Reporters and editors will acknowledge, of course, that using unnamed sources can jeopardize the story’s and the newspaper’s credibility. They understand that it suggests that the newspaper is carrying water for a particular candidate.

Yet, they then go ahead and use them.

Abramson said they carefully vetted the sources, probing their veracity and motives. They tried “time and again” to get permission to identify the sources, but, darn, they just refused. They disclosed as much as they could about the sources and their motives without actually revealing their identities. In effect, they had no choice but to go with the story without the names.

This, of course, is nonsense. They could have decided to not run the story. By running the story—as flimsy as was—the Times made the decision that it contained information, especially during a campaign, that the public must have. The point is arguable. Implicit in the argument is the assumption that protecting the sources from retaliation (or whatever the reason they are firing at a candidate from behind a bush) is more important than giving readers information that rises to a more acceptable level of credibility. This argument is difficult to sustain.

Journalists, as a matter of principle, ought to be willing to tell their sources during a political campaign, “sorry, no name, no story.” This is, after all, a political campaign, not Watergate, which was a matter of lawbreaking at government’s highest level. Any source that seeks to have such a significant impact on a campaign ought to have the courage to say, “Yes, this is important enough for me to stand up and make my charges publicly.” He should be willing to face his target and to have his story and motives closely examined by the public. This may reduce the flow of sources willing to throw dirt on candidates, but the public will be better served in the long run by receiving more trustworthy information. Newspapers would benefit too.

Unwittingly (or wittingly, but the Times didn’t care), the newspaper confirmed what its toughest critics, namely Rush Limbaugh, on the right predicted: the “mainstream media” would give McCain favorable primary coverage in relation to the more conservative Republican candidates, but as soon as McCain appeared to have secured the nomination, the media would turn on him like a pack of jackals. The timing of the Times’ story couldn’t have been better (or worse).

Well, one could say, that’s the Times’ problem. But the Times has helped make it the problem of everyone in the profession. I’m a freelancer now, with conservative views, but I care enough about the profession to be worried. Journalism has become much too relaxed about using anonymous sources, especially when it comes to political campaigns, when the temptation of sources to lie and act from dishonorable motives are the greatest. Only the most amateurish and naďve reporters and editors believe that they can avoid, with a high degree of certitude, being played by the legions of political advisors and candidates that are out to do just that.

At the least, that’s what readers—an example is my friend Bob—believe and that should gravely concern an industry that already has enough problems.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here