HOWARD KURTZ writes that USA Today has some of the tightest sourcing rules around:

The veteran Gannett editor has also imposed strict rules on the use of anonymous sources, which some reporters say go too far and limit their ability to compete on stories. No information attributed to a “senior administration official” has appeared in USA Today since December, largely because of Paulson’s crackdown. Even such formulations as “Democrats opposed to Bush’s Social Security plan” are barred unless some names are included, and the use of unnamed sources has dropped about 75 percent.

To grant someone anonymity, Paulson says, “you have to go to a managing editor, identify that source — which was at the heart of the Jack Kelley mess — explain why we trust that source and how it moves the story forward.” Paulson also runs Jones’s picture on the editorial page, inviting feedback — because, he says, past complaints about Kelley never reached or were dismissed by senior editors.

Kurtz notes that some USA Today staffers think that these rules make it hard to compete with other big papers. But Kurtz’s next item makes me wonder if those other big papers don’t need to do some tightening-up of their own:

How did The Washington Post manage to report that a Gridiron Club skit had lampooned commentator Armstrong Williams when the skit never took place?

“It was a goofball mistake on my part,” says Post reporter Neely Tucker, who corrected it after the first edition and apologized to Williams. He says journalist sources told him of the planned skit — working reporters are barred from the annual event — and that he only learned later that it had been dropped.

Remember this when people accuse blogs of reprinting rumors without checking them!