It's been a decade since Clarence Thomas versus Anita Hill, the "high tech lynching" and around the clock coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearings of the century. It's mostly forgotten now, except as fodder for the occasional joke about Thomas who now sits on the high court and is a puppet for right wing justice Antonin Scalia. But Washington D.C. is a six degrees of separation kind of place and a nomination made by Bush the Junior has brought some history into the present.

Two years after Anitagate, journalist David Brock published a book called The Real Anita Hill. A writer for the right wing magazine The American Spectator and backed by a cadre of conservative intellectuals, Brock wrote a book that tarnished Hill's image and garnered a lot of attention from the mainstream media. During his research, Brock alleges, a judge named Terry Wooten, recently nominated for a federal bench and awaiting confirmation, slipped Brock an FBI file about a woman named Angela Wright, who also accused Thomas of harassment.

Those who don't work in the media (or aren't obsessed with it) might not know that Brock has had a change of heart in recent years. He now believes his book, and his work for "The American Spectator" were propaganda for the right, and in an effort to reclaim some journalistic integrity he's split from his old allies. In The Real Anita Hill he used the FBI files to discredit Wright, saying that the documents painted her as "vengeful, angry and immature." Now, Brock wants the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Wooten for slipping him the FBI file in the first place.

As usual, Brock is misguided, even if he isn't a raging right-winger anymore. There aren't many rules governing the conduct of a journalist in this country and that's a good thing. Generally, if a journalist writes the truth or writes reasonable analysis based on fact, then the journalist has done his job. But there are conventions to practicing the trade that are useful in cracking tough stories. One convention is called "background." If both the journalist and source agrees, information can be given on background, meaning that it will not be attributed to the source, but will be used in the article. I assume Wooten and Brock had a background agreement concerning the FBI file. Brock was free to use the file, quote from the file, paraphrase and summarize the file but was not permitted to write, "according to the FBI file provided to me by Judge Terry Wooten."

But to me, the agreement extends beyond the writing of the piece. Background also means that you can't go out to drinks with friends and say "Wooten gave me the FBI file." It means you can't run to the senate and say "this nominee broke the law by giving me confidential documents." Even if you don't like that source anymore (or never liked him to begin with) the rules of background are unforgiving. If Brock were subpoenaed to testify before a government body or the court, the oath he takes might trump the background agreement (a stronger agreement called "the shield" would prevent Brock from answering questions even in court, but few journalists offer shield agreements for that reason).

In this case, Brock is being unfair to his source. He lied to Wooten--a background agreement has no statute of limitations. This is why, even after all this time has passed, Woodward and Bernstein haven't revealed the identity of Deep Throat--though by agreement with DT they have promised to do so after DT's demise. They are morally obligated to keep their mouths shut until then. A background agreement demands a lot of the journalist; it's a compromise made in order to obtain information. Because of the agreement's lasting duration, it's a moral compromise as well.

Wooten might have been wrong in giving the file to Brock. But it's no longer Brock's place to say. A lot of good information, like the entire Watergate story, is based on background information. But potential sources need to believe that journalists will keep those agreements, or they won't take the risks necessary to aid a free press. Brock needs to keep his mouth shut about Wooten, even if he's right about the facts.

Michael Maiello wrote this column on background.