Anonymous unto death? Bob Woodward names names, raising questions about his ethics.

Does a reporter’s promise of anonymity follow a source to the grave? That’s what a lot of people are wondering given that investigative journalist Bob Woodward is naming names in his new memoir, “Secrets,” which will be published on Nov. 24.

Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation — and become a supporter for just $6 a month.

In an excerpt in The New Yorker, the legendary Washington Post reporter goes into great detail about his friendship with one source, Richard Darman, a powerful official in several Republican administrations. But there are more, including several Supreme Court justices, top aides to Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon’s lawyers. And, of course, there’s Mark Felt, who identified himself years ago as “Deep Throat,” Woodward’s celebrated source during the Watergate scandal.

Peter Baker writes in The New York Times: “Many of his early sources have died, and he received permission from others still alive to identify them.” But that doesn’t address the question. Craig Whitlock, writing in the Post, similarly swerves around the issue, saying, “While most of the individuals he names are dead, Woodward says some gave him permission to name them and that others have since become identifiable in public records as his sources, according to an advance copy of the manuscript obtained by The Post.”

Some? What does that mean? The question is whether all of the deceased sources Woodward named gave him permission to out them after they died. Oliver Darcy of Status gets at it more directly (sub. req.):

Woodward’s decision to out sources after their deaths stirred some controversy in media circles on Monday. It’s an open question as to whether it suddenly becomes acceptable to identify confidential sources because they have died. It’s an especially interesting question to consider when unmasking sources who violated the law by leaking classified information. I asked Woodward by email whether he had any prior understanding with the sources that would allow him to reveal their identities after their death. I also asked Woodward if he’d like to offer his perspective on the ethics of the matter. He did not respond to my request.

Bill Marimow, a retired editor-in-chief of The Philadelphia Inquirer, took Woodward to task, writing in a public Facebook post that “making all these sources public is a betrayal of the promise of anonymity that in my opinion can only be waived by the recipient of that promise.”

Before this week, I can’t say I had given the matter much thought. In my case, I can only think of one source during my career whose identity people would be interested in knowing, and that person remains above ground. Even then, I no longer have the notes I’d need to recreate those long-ago conversations. Woodward apparently keeps everything. I think the argument that confidentiality extends unto death is compelling. But as Darcy points out, we don’t know what agreement Woodward had with his sources.

Because I was trying to think this through, I asked a few people I respect what they think, not as any kind of comprehensive survey but just to get a few more opinions. My What Works partner Ellen Clegg, a retired journalist with The Boston Globe who dealt with confidential sources for decades as both an editor and a reporter, said that it shouldn’t matter whether the person in question is living or dead. She said in an email:

The reporter-source relationship is one of the most important pillars of journalism. It’s an implied contract, and it seems to endure even as our industry faces challenges on all fronts. So it depends on what Bob Woodward told his sources long ago. But does anyone tell sources, “I’m going to out you after you’re dead?” Hard to believe. On its face, it seems like a betrayal.

Jonathan Kaufman, who’s the director of our School of Journalism here at Northeastern, agreed, telling me:

When I tell a source I won’t disclose their name, that means I won’t disclose their name — ever. Woodward’s book shows how careful he was as a reporter and that all the scoops he had — which some critics questioned—were genuine and based on credible information. But I worry that by disclosing the names of sources after they have died, Woodward may chill future sources and whistleblowers who worry about their reputations and the impact on their families and professional contacts.

Paul Bass, the founder of the New Haven Independent, said he didn’t have a “very strong coherent point of view” about the issue but essentially agreed with Ellen and Jonathan:

I don’t think they lose the right to having some agency over that matter once they’re dead. Secondly they might be thinking about the impact the revelation of their identity might have on other people they care about. Which remains a  live issue when they are dead. Finally, I’ve written quite a few obits and news stories involving people I dealt with on a confidential basis when they were alive. And I’ve never done this or considered doing this. It feels kind of cheap. Also, if they trusted you when they were alive, they tended to give you plenty of on the record information that tells the story of their life.

I’m giving the last word to Emily Rooney, host of “Beat the Press” on Contrarian Boston and a longtime local and national television news director. In her characteristically pithy manner, she told me, “While I’m personally interested to know his sources, if I were a current source or if he were to call me now I’d hang up. It’s not something I would do, but I’m sure he has his reasons.”

This is all speculative and will remain so unless Woodward clarifies exactly what understanding he had with his sources regarding whether he could identify them after they’d died. If I had to guess, I would say that Darman did not give his permission given that his friendship with Woodward fractured over what Darman believed to be a betrayal.

But I’d rather not guess. This is something that Woodward needs to address, and I hope he does.