A frequent question from readers is why newspapers have to use unidentified sources in news stories.

The answer is, most of the time, we shouldn't.

You see a lot of it in national government-related stories where the Associated Press or major newspaper will write that "a high government official" said this or that.

Usually, it's not terribly difficult to figure out the source. Often, if a reporter has quoted — say — Secretary of State Colin Powell, then later quotes an unnamed prominent official, you can pretty much guess it was Powell making the statement.

But by providing some comments "off the record," it gives Powell the ability to deny it later if he feels he needs to.

Actually, reputable newspapers are generally judicious in the use of anonymous sources, and we have one woman to thank.

Her name is Janet Cooke, and she used to work for the Washington Post.

You've got to remember that the Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's used their famous anonymous source, "Deep Throat" to help them uncover President Richard Nixon's role in the June 17, 1972, pre-dawn break-in at Washington's Watergate building.

Their stories led to Nixon's resignation and a Pulitzer Prize for Woodward and Bernstein.

Unfortunately, it also led to Janet Cooke and another Pulitzer Prize, one that had to be given back.

Possibly because of Woodward and Bernstein's success, a culture of trusting reporters with anonymous sources existed at the Post. On April 13, 1981, Cooke was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for a Sept. 29, 1980 story, "Jimmy's World," about an 8-year-old heroin addict.

Here's an excerpt:

"Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict, a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms."

The trouble is, there was no "Jimmy." On April 15, Cooke confessed that she had made up the article and that "Jimmy," represented a composite of child addicts.

She wasn't writing news, she was writing fiction. Cooke resigned in disgrace.

While it was terribly embarrassing for the Post and a major threat to its credibility, it also scared most of the rest of us who edit newspapers into being more responsible when it comes to the use of unnamed sources.

At The Daily Star, our policy is clear. If a reporter is going to use an unnamed source in a story, he or she must reveal the source to Managing Editor Cary Brunswick or me.

If the reporter refuses to reveal the source, then the quote will not appear in this newspaper.

Fortunately, but not surprisingly, that has never happened in the five years I have been editor. Our reporters understand that once a newspaper loses credibility with its readers, it's extremely difficult to get back.

We try to avoid use of anonymous sources as much as possible. But sometimes they are necessary, particularly to protect someone in a story that concerns the public good.

The whole question of what's "on the record" or "off the record" is also pretty clear-cut, but can still be a bit confusing to those who are not used to dealing with the news media.

If a source says: "This is off the record" before making a statement, we will not identify him unless he goes back "on the record." Sometimes, someone will talk to a reporter and afterward say, "Oh, that was 'off the record.'"

No, it isn't.

It's on the record unless specified before a quote is given. Virtually all politicians and public relations people know the rules and many use them to their advantage. For others, it doesn't take long to learn.

Newspapers prefer to name their sources because it makes them accountable for what they say and do, and perhaps most importantly, because our readers need to know we're not making things up.

Thank you, Janet Cooke, wherever you are.

Questions from readers are more than welcome. E-mail Sam Pollak at spollak@thedailystar.com or write to him at P.O. Box 250. Oneonta, NY 13820.