Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Journalists not Stooges: Better Source Rules

Submitted by Jon Henke on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 08:58
in

There has been an interesting discussion on "the widespread and baseless grants of anonymity by journalists", which shields sources - especially government officials - from being accountable for their allegations.   Glenn Greenwald says this produces "manipulative and distorting effects", including that "there is no accountability whatsoever when they make false or misleading statements."   Journalists who are willing to participate in that game find themselves with better access; journalists who require more accountable sources find themselves cut off.

But Julian Sanchez astutely points out that sources "request “background” or “off the record” status at the beginning of a conversation", so "you don’t know which it is until you hear what they’ve got to say, which often requires agreeing to a source’s terms—at which point you can’t go back on the agreement if they’re just giving you the party line."

The various 'just stop doing it' solutions don't seem likely to help resolve this problem, since (as Alex Massie points out) there are strong incentives for both journalists and sources to continue doing it.

It seems to me there is a much easier solution, though: anonymous sources who knowingly burn a reporter should be burned.

If an anonymous source turns out to have knowingly lied or defrauded the reporter - violating the reporter's confidence and credibility - the reporter should be free to blow the whistle, to expose their identity or their affiliation so that the source, not the news outlet, can be accountable for the fraud.

If a reporter will not blow the whistle on fraudulent sources, they're complicit in the fraud.

Helpfully, this doesn't require endless conference debate and guild approval.  Reporters can just adopt the new rule for sources.  Immediately.  Unilaterally.  Like TechCrunch's recent decision not to accept embargo demands, you can rewrite the rules and force others to honor a rule that makes much more sense.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Rediculous

Submitted by cr on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 13:14.

Tell me there's something else to talk about. Yes, in DC there's not shortage of what you're talking about, but there's other ways of going about this. But what you're proposing is a answer looking for a solution.

      1. Reporters should never just go on someone's word. Good reporters verify. If a source is bad, stop using the source.

      2. Ask a reporter, I'm sure there are other ways they handle this as well.

What you're proposing though, squeezes the balloon. It solves one problem but creates another obvious problem. Although, for many reporters they don't even need sources. I feel like a lot of the news is just made up anymore. We've replaced punditry for actual journalism. So who cares? I wish more people did.

And that kind of shit has been going on  . . . since journalism. Given today's news cycles, I'm sure many in the media (company heads) aren't even concerned about this. It's better to have a headline up quickly, than to have good facts. I'm not saying that they want bad facts, but the scales are much more tilted towards immediacy.

-----------------------

And since no one else is responding to this story I'll just add that "welcome to the free super-mass media market". The faster that most things happen, the worse the quality. Maybe it'll take time, but let's hope for that idea that a free market corrects itself.

 

just ask CNBC

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 13:15.

did you catch Jon Stewart's program? Where were all the jokes? ;-)

This is ridiculous...

Submitted by revprez on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 15:18.

Journalism is intelligence work, with all its warts.  If you're arguing the means of collection, you're already losing the larger game of how to handle the analysis.  Who cares if any one source is anonymous, or if he's a liar?  He's a single source.  The GOP should viciously attack any analysis based on such a flimsy basis, or where it is unclear that two sources are independent.  More importantly, it is in the best interests of Americans to be skeptical not only of a journalist's sources, but the journalist himself--and conservatives have been on the forefront of stoking public mistrust for the media.  Why toss out the few gains conservatives have made culturally in a foolhardy effort to reform the unreformable?

 

You're missing the point

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 07:08.

There is a pattern of reporters using anonymous sources to push claims that are essentially government propaganda. By doing so, this in turn gives them access to 'favored treatment' from the elite.

Being skeptical of a journalist's sources IS being skeptical of the journalist himself. The two go hand-in-hand. If you were not skeptical of the journalist, you would trust him to only place sources as anonymous if necessary.

flashback

Submitted by jaydedman on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 09:06.

You guys sound like a bunch of liberals during the Bush administration's pumping the press full of anonymous propaganda. Facts are nice, aren't they?

ssh! you're talkin to one of the more libertarian folks on here.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 09:07.

wht you're talking about is EXACTLY what he's referencing.

Exactly

Submitted by jaydedman on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 09:32.

I hope Republicans realize how their own tactics are now being used on them. Who's going to break the cycle? We got to get rid of these ideas of Triumphalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphalism It's mental illness.

The Libertarian wing of the right has been working hard the last 8 years coming up with a solid philosophical base. Glenn Greenwald is a good example when it comes to realizing the issues are less about Right VS Left...but about the very process of government itself.

First though, we have the admit that we have a problem and identify them. You got to be able to talk to the guy at the store about issues we all face reguardless of party affiliation--which, in my mind, means less and less these days.

I'm glad Jon points out the tiny cracks. I wonder if it's enough for a true Next Right.

Actually if you go through his archives

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 07:05.

That's the solution that Glenn Greenwald proposes as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right

Submitted by Danny Glover on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 08:07.

And you're solution is proposing a second wrong, Jon. If a reporter gives his word that he won't reveal a source, he should keep his word -- even if the source proves to be a fraud. The solution is to drop that source as reliable for the future, not to burn bridges with all other sources by sinking to the same low level of character and breaking a promise.

Furthemore, it really is as simple as "just stop doing it." Grants of anonymity and speaking on background are Washington traditions. Outside the Beltway, they are rare, and news organizations have written policies on how and when to grant anonymity. Anonymous sourcing of news in Washington is the journalistic equivalent of the "culture of corruption" in politics.

some people are completely unable to speak

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 09:09.

without anonymity. Like military officials. How else are they supposed to register disagreement? Mass Resignations?