For years I've been telling people that you simply cannot trust the news media when it reports something based on anonymous sources.
People don't care. Even when I prove to them they can't trust anonymous sources, they do it anyway. People love to get information, no matter how sketchy, and blindly follow it ... as long as it reinforces their preconceptions.
Palin doesn't know Africa is a continent? Sure, if you believe Palin is a moron, you'll just accept that, despite the fact that you can't corroborate it.
There's so many reasons to not believe it: it could be the source is lying; it could be the reporter is lying; it could be the reporter misunderstood, and misreported, what the source said; it could be that the source misunderstood what Palin said. And so on. Unless we as the public know who said what, we cannot cross-examine and test the source to get to what actually happened.
And now we see that MSNBC reported that the person leaking information about Palin is someone who ... doesn't exist. It was a hoax. (Not the leak, but this apparent leaker.)
But if Shuster and MSNBC are so quick to report on someone who doesn't exist being the leaker, why would we believe a reporter wouldn't be taken in by a fake source, or a lying one, on the initial story? And if it turns out the source was wrong, do you really think the reporter would tell us, if they didn't get caught?
I know it's hard for a lot of people, but you do have an alternative: strictly reject news stories that do not have verifiable corroboration for their claims. It's not hard once you get the hang of it. While reading or listening to a story, keep an eye out for what the source of the story is. If it is not identified specifically such that you or someone else could find out for yourself, then ignore the story. Forget it. Pretend it doesn't exist.
You simply cannot trust stories based on anonymous sources. When you do trust them, you show yourself to be a fool, and you contribute to the problem of increasingly irresponsible journalistic practices.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at November 17, 2008 08:02 AM | Email ThisOne of the ways Jayson Blair was able to get away with getting his fiction printed was hiding behind anonymous sources.
A pet peeve of mine is that Sen. Joe McCarthy relied a lot on anonymous accusers, and the same journalists who have turned his very name into a perjorative nonetheless grant themselves the right to use anonymous accusers.
This is kind of a religious faith in the goodness and trustworthiness of journalists. We don't trust lawyers, cops and judges with it (see Amendment VI). Only journalists are accorded this priestly status.
Posted by: russell garrard on November 17, 2008 08:55 AMAnd the worst charge I can bring against the otherwise excellent Attorney General in Olympia, one Rob McKenna, is that he supports the concept of 'protecting' the anonymous sources of media.
I guess he thinks the public will be better served by the receipt of more, or more complete, information. But, he's also supposed to be a crusader against consumer fraud, where misleading consumers to their detriment benefits the blokes doing the misleading.
So how on earth can he defend the concept of anonymous media sources? Is he asserting that 100% of media decision-makers are 100% honest in their dealings with information sources and their motives when publishing news stories? What a crock. Most businesses are honest, but a few are not. Likewise, a few media organs are less than honest - or actively dishonest when driven by political activism in bulldozing public opinion. Since anonymous sources are an editor's best friend when performing hatchet jobs on his political enemies, it's only logical to be skeptical of any and all anonymous sources, who benefit those editors to the detriment of the public.
Too bad Rob McKenna can't figure that out.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 17, 2008 09:38 AMYep. I wrote to McKenna about it at the time, and it has always been my biggest problem with him: he supported the enactment of a new "shield law."
And my guess is he doesn't understand the issue very well.
In my opinion, the MSM have just pulled of the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public through the use of inaccurate and incomplete reporting. We had people voting either for or against candidates that were, for all intents and purposes, fictional characters created by the media.
Do you think Rob McKenna gets that?
Posted by: Paula on November 17, 2008 10:10 AMCan you give a single example where anonymous sources were essential to reporting an important story that the public needed to know about?
Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2008 10:22 AMWell, devil's advocate: Watergate.
It was overblown, yes, but it was a legitimate story that the public did need to know about.
Posted by: cliff on November 17, 2008 11:35 AM#10 - Yes, Obama did visit 57 states, with one left to go.
Posted by: Seabecker on November 17, 2008 11:47 AMOf course that would actually entail work, rather than self gratification.
Today's "journalists" have forgotten the definition of their career. They seem to believe that beyond merely reporting what they think is news they have no responsibility. They have been snared by the thought that the public needs to KNOW...IMMEDIATELY! and that the race is to be the first to get it out than the one to get it right.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 17, 2008 11:52 AMYep. Watergate is a good example. It's usually the one people think of. You have a powerful President whose administration is committing serious crimes, and a man in government who wants to blow the whistle who won't do it unless his identity is protected.
And do you know many laws protected the rights of the journalists to not reveal Deep Throat's identity?
None at all.
So as a defense of Shield Laws, it actually hurts the case. And as a defense of anonymous sources in general, it's also poor, because for the most part, Woodward and Bernstein corroborated what Deep Throat told them before they published it, so their stories were NOT based merely on what the anonymous source was telling them.
So Watergate is a great example: it proves we do not need shield laws, and it proves that even with THAT important story, we still required corroboration of the source's claims.
The need to fill 24 hours of air time, and blurring of reporting and opinion making, shows that journalists should work harder at collaborating the information they present.
That said, has it EVER been any different really? There are lots of historical examples of news reporting "shaping" public opinion with parsing of facts, or downright invention.
Watergate doesn't prove anything about the need or lack thereof of shield laws. Pudge, did anyone sue the two reporters in an effort to produce their source?
When and why should a reporter ever have to reveal a source?
Posted by: BA on November 17, 2008 12:09 PMThen explain why Fox News was the ONLY cable network to have balanced coverage of both political candidates for President. Each candidate received negative news stories exactly 40% of the time on the network.
As opposed to MSNBC, which had 14% negative stories for Obama, and 73% for McCain
Posted by: Palouse on November 17, 2008 12:44 PM"On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally)." and in fairness I'll say I just parsed their findings in this quote which they went on to say McCain's stories on Fox were negative almost 2 to 1 over their positive stories.
Just shows that relying on just a few sources for news is dangerous.
If one where to have taken all their political information from this website - they might have expected a different result in our governor's race for example.
Posted by: BA on November 17, 2008 01:00 PMpudge, cliff already gave the easy answer of Watergate.
Exactly, and then I showed how it is an answer that shows exactly why shield laws are NOT necessary: because they didn't exist, and the story still got told.
For a whole lot more information on why the reporter shield act is needed go to TVW and do a search on reporter shield law and Downtown Seattle Republican Club.
Why do you think I need more information? I've studied this issue a lot more than most people, for more than a decade, beginning back before I got my degree in journalism.
There was a whole panel discussion with Reichert and McKenna and some other notable folks talking about it and giving several other examples of instances where having that law and an anonymous source was good and necessary.
If there's any story that "needed" an anonymous source, that was "good" for having had one, it's Watergate, and there were no shield laws covering the story. If Woodward and Bernstein did not need a shield law, then I don't think you'll be able to come up with an example that needed it more than they did.
You're welcome to try. I think you'll fail.
There isn't a sane person in the country that wouldn't like to silence the Neo-Nazi's and the KKK.
Um. I wouldn't. The very idea of quieting dissent is horrific to me, far worse than the racist ideology spouted by those groups.
Nearly everyone wouldn't mind if we passed a law saying those two organizations weren't allowed.
I absolutely would mind.
But once you start making those type of decisions then where does it stop.
That's not really the main problem for me, though it is a problem. I have two problems with it far more important than that. The second one is that a hidden political ideology is far more dangerous and insidious than a known one. Sunlight is a great cure for many ills. Racists and communists and so on are less dangerous when they are out in the open.
The most important reason, however, is that this is a simple issue of liberty: no one has any right to tell you what ideas you're allowed to give voice to. This strikes at the very heart of what it means to live in a free country that respects the inalienable rights each of us has upon our creation.
The slippery slope problem, again, is a problem, but it is far from the most important one.
Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2008 01:14 PMI didn't mean to advocate for shield laws, which I'm totally, 100% against. I didn't realize you were asking about that. I merely thought you were asking, in the abstract, if there were situations where serious issues were brought about by anonymous sources that probably couldn't have been brought about otherwise.
Anyhow, I'm against shield laws because I'm 100% against ANY law that sets so-called "Journalists" apart from the rest of us. Reporting on important events was not meant to be something only a special few elite get to do, anyone and everyone should be able to, and now with the internet, they now do exactly that. Carving out special rules for a special class known as "journalists" is extremely dangerous and I don't favor any law that recognizes them as a separate class.
Posted by: cliff on November 17, 2008 01:16 PMWatergate doesn't prove anything about the need or lack thereof of shield laws. Pudge, did anyone sue the two reporters in an effort to produce their source?
The federal government could have taken Woodward and Bernstein to court and forced them to reveal their source, or go to jail. Absolutely. Mark Felt broke the law, and the government could have forced the issue, getting his identity so they could prosecute him.
However, courts and federal officials aren't stupid. They knew Deep Throat was a whistleblower about a serious crime, so they never bothered to go after the reporters. As you said, the Post corroborated the information, so it was not really in doubt that the information was accurate.
Another thing to note here is that most courts will only force a journalist to reveal his source -- even in absence of a shield law -- if there's no other way to get the information. In Watergate, that would have been the only way to find out Felt's identity, but they decided it was better to not bother. As they usually do.
There were no federal shield laws in 1973, and there still aren't. Can anyone here honestly tell me that there's a need for shield laws at the federal level? Seriously ... there's more illegal leaks, more anonymous sources, and less corroboration in Washington DC reporting than anywhere else in the county, and there's not a single shield law in place to protect reporters. And I can count on one hand the number of journalists who have gone to jail recently for not revealing their sources ...
And here's the dirty little secret: every one of those journalists likely would have gone to jail ANYWAY under most proposed shield laws. They do not protect journalists when they are the only way to find information crucial to a criminal trial.
Shield laws are nothing more than a way to legitimize sloppy reporting with anonymous sources, and the overwhelming majority of uses of anonymous sources are designed to protect either the journalist's assets, or the source's job, or both. And protecting those things does not help the public.
"On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally)."
Yes, but that is an indictment of the norm, not an indictment of Fox News. Again: they had the same ratings for both Obama and McCain. It was, indeed, fair and balanced. (On the news shows, anyway ... the pundit shows is another story.)
Over the years you'll find few people on the right who have been more critical of Fox News than me. But in the last couple years especially, they've really cleaned up their act a lot.
Last year I favored CNN, then MSNBC, then Fox. This year, Fox overtook MSNBC because of Olbermann and Matthews, mostly. But after the adulation CNN heaped on Obama, now Fox is my first choice, simply because they are the most fair and balanced. Finally, their motto has become somewhat true. :-)
I know I am mixing two issues, shield laws and the use of anonymous sources. I was talking about both, really.
Watergate proves both points. The first I stated as "you simply cannot trust the news media when it reports something based on anonymous sources." But Watergate was not based on anonymous sources. It was based on hard evidence that the anonymous source told them about. That's a big difference.
The second was about shield laws, which is, of course, obvious. BA brings up a good point, but it's worth noting that the prospect for a court order to reveal the source was well-understood by the reporters and they did the story anyway.
I didn't think so. To spell it out for you, the subject is a less than admirable press not Palin's IQ.
The truth sir is that your moronity is alive, well and in full bloom for all to see. I suspect that Ms. Palin probably has more than a handful of points on you . . . IQ wise.
Hey, did you vote for Obama? Just curious.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 17, 2008 01:34 PMNo. Most define "Journalist" in a narrow fashion that requires you to be someone who gets paid to report.
I'd be against them anyway for other reasons most likely. But I'm 1000% against them as they have been passed and applied. I'm absolutely 100% against the Government being able to decide who is and who is not a "Journalist" which is bad for the public and the Journalistic profession in my opinion.
Posted by: cliff on November 17, 2008 01:37 PMIt makes no sense: journalists exist primarily to inform the people about the government, and yet in order to do their job, they are beholden to the government for specific favors (designation as a "journalist" for protection under a shield law)? It's insanity. A clear conflict of interest.
With the MSM becoming a group best described as, in the parlance, "leg humpers for Obama;" abandoning any pretext of their public responsibility to report accurately and fairly, without any kind of even a pretense of impartiality (They were more "bought" than Queen Chrissy, the Tribal Ho, and that's hard to be.) they have abandoned any right to any protection not extended to any other PR firm.
And PR flacks can't protect their sources.
That's because you are confusing news with commentary. O'Reilly doesn't call himself a journalist while Chris Matthews would argue that he (Matthews)is one and an unbiased one at that. Fox has plenty of liberal hosts including Colmes, Rivera, Van Sustern while MSNBC has who? Joe Scarborough at 5am? The kiddies at MSNBC couldn't hold Brit Humes jockstrap as it relates to actual journalistic professionalism.
The story you're talking about from MSNBC was not from an anonymous source. It has nothing to do with your point. It does nothing to prove that the Palin story was true or false.
Watergate. Lewinsky. Plame. Biden being selected as VP. Palin being selected as VP. Clinton in the running for SecState.
Almost all major news stories come from anonymous sources. Your logic is simplistic and populist, which is fine because I know that you're neither of those things. But readers of this blog might actually believe what you say is reasonable. We would be a much less informed country without anonymous sources.
Of course, it goes both ways. Cheney leaked news to the NY Times and then quoted it on Meet the Press without identifying himself as the leak.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 17, 2008 02:28 PMIs it a good thing for the Government to have the power to compel testimony in all cases? The potential for misuse is high I think.
Two further comments:
1. Measuring fairness based on equal positive or negative story coverage presumes that those being covered have equally positive or negative things to be said about them. I think that is rarely if ever true.
2. Who's a journalist. No, the government should never decide.
Posted by: BA on November 17, 2008 02:32 PMWas MSNBC tricked by some nonexistent dude? Sure, but if the nonexistent guy were actually leaking stories instead of saying, "Hey look, I did this," there would hopefully be a different standard.
And I'm certain that sometimes there isn't, and that the media makes mistakes and bias comes out. But that doesn't impinge the entire process.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 17, 2008 02:37 PMPudge, you're going to miss a lot of reporting if you don't trust anonymous sources.
Extremely little GOOD or WORTHWHILE reporting.
The rule of thumb is that you need at least two or three trusted anonymous stories before running with something.
A very poor rule of thumb. A better one is that you don't run with anything unless you can verify it with a public source.
The story you're talking about from MSNBC was not from an anonymous source.
True.
It has nothing to do with your point.
False. It's as though you didn't read what I wrote: it proves the media cannot even be trusted to know if a source is legitimate.
It does nothing to prove that the Palin story was true or false.
No, it only proves that the Palin story cannot be trusted because we cannot independently verify it.
Watergate.
I described this in detail above: the Watergate story was trusted only because it was independently verified by hard evidence.
Lewinsky.
There was never any important anonymously sourced reporting about Monica Lewinsky. Everything that leaked that was of importance was going to be public within hours or days anyway.
Plame.
A great example: most of the anonymously sourced stories about Wilson and Plame were WRONG.
Biden being selected as VP.
Yes. Again: completely unimportant. It makes not a single bit of difference to anyone -- except advertisers on news networks -- that Biden's name was leaked a few hours early.
Palin being selected as VP.
I don't believe that was reported before it was officially announced.
Clinton in the running for SecState.
Completely unimportant.
Almost all major news stories come from anonymous sources.
False. And those that do are usually, like your examples above, a. unimportant, b. backed up with independently verifiable information, or c. incorrect.
Your logic is simplistic
Not at all. It actually requires pretty advanced understanding of how the media and the law actually work.
We would be a much less informed country without anonymous sources.
False. On the contrary, we are a much less informed country BECAUSE OF anonymous sources.
Pudge, are you sure that the Fed's could have compelled the reporters in Watergate to reveal their sources?
Yes. Or put them in jail. Absolutely. (Well, presuming they could have made a case that Deep Throat violated the law, which I believe they could have done.)
Is it a good thing for the Government to have the power to compel testimony in all cases? The potential for misuse is high I think.
Again: we have never had federal shield laws. We have a ton of illegal leaks in Washington DC. And journalist testimony is almost never compelled. Yes, there is a POTENTIAL for abuse against journalists, but in our long history it hasn't happened on any broad scale. Sure, there's an occasional example, but the government far more often abuses the ability to leak things anonymously, than it does abuse the ability to compel testimony from journalists.
Who's a journalist. No, the government should never decide.
Absolutely agreed.
If you had information that you thought was important to the country, but would put your job or your livelihood at risk then of course you should not have to do a "big reveal."
Yes, just like in Watergate.
Media should always corroborate their sources.
With HARD EVIDENCE, not other anonymous sources. Zero + Zero = Zero.
if the nonexistent guy were actually leaking stories instead of saying, "Hey look, I did this," there would hopefully be a different standard.
Right. Just look at Jayson Blair.
And I'm certain that sometimes there isn't, and that the media makes mistakes and bias comes out. But that doesn't impinge the entire process.
Yes, it absolutely does.
Journalism is about trust. These many, many "mistakes" (a combination of carelessness, stupidity, and malice) add up to a single inescapable conclusion: the news media cannot be trusted. If they do not back up what they say with information you can verify yourself, then what they say should be ignored entirely.
Yes, there was far more negative things about Obama to report than there was about McCain, yet the coverage in almost every news source but Fox was the exact opposite, with much more negative stories about McCain. Funny, that.
Posted by: Palouse on November 17, 2008 02:51 PMOn Fox, if they're any barometer of balanced coverage and I'm not making that claim - they found the need to produce about double the amount of negative stories as positive about McCain. I don't know how to measure actual negative versus positive "qualities" which result in reporting. But, I'll bet in the terms of the study being quoted - the fact that McCain was behind in the polls probably tipped the stories and how they were recorded positive or negative into the results that were measured.
You're presuming the media evaluates "positive" and "negative" qualities of a candidate and then adjusts its reporting accordingly, which isn't "fact" either, unless EVERY Republican candidate has more negative qualities than the Democrat one which is ridiculous.
It is up to the PUBLIC to decide that, not the media. It's the media's job to report evenly, and only Fox did that. Fox reported on negative stories on each candidate evenly. No other network did. Negative stories are a better barometer than positive ones, simply because any news organization can come up with puff pieces on candidates. There were a ton of them about Obama in the MSM.
the fact that McCain was behind in the polls probably tipped the stories and how they were recorded positive or negative into the results that were measured.
There's no proof of this either. McCain was very close in the polls over the summer and after the convention, and that didn't affect negative reporting about McCain by the MSM, especially MSNBC.
Posted by: Palouse on November 17, 2008 03:38 PMIs Rush Limbaugh required to report things evenly. Are those posting here required to be even handed?
Who decides what is even?
I'm not assuming anything.
I am suggesting that to gather information from news sources, it is necessary to do so from a broad and wide-ranging set of sources. It doesn't hurt to look at those sources that disagree with your world view too. Just in case, and I know its a really small possibility for most folks, that you're wrong.
Posted by: BA on November 17, 2008 03:54 PMI didn't say they should be compelled to report things evenly like the Democrats want to do only with talk radio, the only media that doesn't overwhelmingly favor them. But it should be their goal to evenly report on candidates. And the statistics show that they don't, except for Fox.
I am suggesting that to gather information from news sources, it is necessary to do so from a broad and wide-ranging set of sources.
I don't disagree with this at all. My point is that, other than Fox, the television and most print sources are biased towards Obama.
Posted by: Palouse on November 17, 2008 04:03 PMWhy and who decides what's even?
Fox allegedly did - but what if the timing of their "even" reporting turned out to be that all the negative stories regarding Obama were aired between 5:00PM and 11:00PM, and all the negative stories about McCain were aired between 1:00AM and 5:00AM? I don't think the report makes that distinction...if there was one.
I think it is great that someone is trying to measure coverage. I think the information should be useful more for the consumers of the coverage than the producers. I'd rather know the bias outright than act on the notion that I'm getting "even" reporting when such a thing doesn't exist in reality.
Why should journalism have a different set of rules than any other business? I'm sure if Limbaugh became "even" in his coverage, his ratings and therefore his income, would drop like a rock. What would be his motivation to do that, and why should he?
A news source should always strive to report evenly and accurately. To not do so is to abuse the public trust (although as of the past few years they have burned that public trust). They shouldn't need any "Fairness" Doctrine to report news. News is facts not flights of fancy (hear that Dan Rather?).
The "Fairness" Doctrine is simply a tool to shutdown opinion. Opinion that does not bill itself as unbiased "news" like Dan Rather or the New York Times or MSNBC. No conservative opinion source I listen to on the radio or read in print tries to hide the fact that they are conservative and that the opinion you will get from them will have that bias. I know up front. That is quite unlike the liberal mouthpieces for the DNC who report the "news" and then swear that what you have just heard has been vetted and researched for accuracy and fairness.
More commonly now, liberal biased news sources (which is to say most of them) now lie by omission, leaving out great swaths of pertinent facts and data. Fortunately, the truth omitted can be plugged in through web based sources.
Posted by: Gb Jiggy on November 17, 2008 05:27 PMOkay, well I'll be informed and you can be proud :)
Posted by: John Jensen on November 17, 2008 05:40 PMIt could be that some in the McCain campaing just did not like Palin. It could be that the campaign was so dysfunctional that they are making up stories about one another. It could be that Palin alienated the McCain campaign so much that they felt they had to trash her.
Remember though, this is coming from Faux News and from republicans - not from democrats. Guess that means you can't trust republicans and Faux news.
Of course, every time Palin speaks and mangles the English language by babbling incoherently, that must also be due to the media.
Every time Palin opens her mouth and doesn't answer a question or does an interview and opens her mouth to demonstrate what a fool she is - well all that has to be due to the media too.
Yup, Plain is actually brilliant but the media is putting those confusing words in her mouth or keeping her silent when she really knows the answer.
McCain ran one of the worst name-calling, petty, disorganized campaigns in history - is it not any wonder his pathetic campaign got negative publicity. They EARNED it.
Palin and her serial lying about the bridge to nowhere she supported.
Palin and her unethical conduct in troopergate.
McCain and his mantra of " the fundamental of the economy are strong" - right before the huge collapse.
McCain and his "I am a deregulator" that changed to I will regulate the banks.
Mccain and the phony suspension of his campaign that was a grandstand play.
McCain and his phony attacks about Ayers.
Palin and her hypocritical atacks about palling around with "terrorists" when she is much more closely associated with the AIP succesionists.
Yup - what a bunch of lying fools - no wonder they were trounced and lost seats in congress.
Um...try again, dolt.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 17, 2008 06:46 PMOkay, well I'll be informed ...
No, you won't. That's the point.
Besides, I've been going by this philosophy for over a decade, and I'm as well-informed as almost anyone, and far better informed than most.
Pretty much everything he said was wrong. Yes, Fox News broke the story, to their shame, but everything else he said was B.S. That he can't spell is the least of his problems.
Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2008 07:35 PMThat's why your creed is questionable. You can choose when anonymous sources are untrustworthy (for example, in that NY Times McCain article that implied he was sleeping with a lobbist) and when they are trustworthy. Critical analysis and thinking is much more useful than a blunt, zero-tolerance rule.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 23, 2008 11:26 PMSo pudge, who's our next SecDef gonna be? SecState? SecTreasury? SecHHS? SecCommerce?
No idea.
You'd have a pretty good idea if you listened to those evil anonymous sources. You'd have no idea if you didn't.
Um. False. I'd have no idea EITHER WAY. You have no idea. None of us has any idea.
But let's assume some of those anonymous sources are right. So what? How does it benefit anyone to know that Hillary is going to be Secretary of State a few weeks before it is announced? How is this in any way useful or important?
That's why your creed is questionable.
It's not a creed, it's simple logic. And no, in fact, what you said above demonstrates how well it works. I don't waste time time thinking about something completely unimportant. You do.
You can choose when anonymous sources are untrustworthy ... and when they are trustworthy.
Um. No, you cannot. This is self-evidently true. How can you "choose" when an anonymous source is trustworthy when you have no idea who the anonymous source is? You're making my case for me.
Critical analysis and thinking is much more useful than a blunt, zero-tolerance rule.
Critical analysis and thinking will necessarily lead you to distrusting all anonymous sources.
Posted by: pudge on November 24, 2008 08:12 AM