One of the problems in large businesses and governments is that information that is supposed to remain confidential is sometimes “leaked” to the press. In the past, reporters who publicized such information never named the person who “leaked” the information by saying such things as, “The source wishes to remain unnamed” or “The source remains confidential” and “The name of my source remains privileged”. Perhaps the person who “leaked” the Watergate information is one of the most noticeable.
Anyway, recently I have become aware of a new way in which reporters now describe the “source” of confidential information. They now say the following, or something close to it:
The source spoke only on the condition that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak about the matter.
Well, that certainly sounds nicer, does it not? There is now no obvious implication that the “source” was doing something “out of bounds” such as, horror or horrors, “leaking” secret information ! The most recent example of this I found on this web page where it was reported that Representative Patrick Kennedy will not seek re-election. The applicable sentence read as follows:
The official spoke to The Associated Press only on the condition that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak ahead of the official announcement.
Ain’t that great? Here we have another wonderful way to use the English language, this time using it to tell us citizens of things we really need to know, even though these are considered confidential, or even “top-secret”! Note that the key phrase is “not authorized to speak“. Of course in this particular example, the “leaked” information could not really harm anybody, especially since the “leaked” information was officially announced shortly thereafter.