Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation (Greenwald / Slate)

[struggle4progress]

Sunday Aug. 3, 2008 07:26 EDT

... The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum argued yesterday that despite the need for journalists to use confidential sources, "the profession -- and the rest of us -- better off if sources know that they run the risk of being unmasked if their mendacity is egregious enough to become newsworthy in its own right." Drum added: "I'd say that part of re-reporting ought to include a full explanation of exactly who was peddling the bentonite lie in the first place, and why they were doing it." Nonetheless, Drum said: "In practice, most journalists refuse to identify their sources under any circumstances at all, even when it's clear that those sources deliberately lied to them."

Drum is right that it is unusual for journalists to out their "sources" even when they are exploiting the confidentiality pledge to disseminate lies to the public, but such outing is by no means unprecedented. Last year, when I first wrote about ABC's broadcasting of this false Saddam/anthrax story, I spoke with numerous experts in "journalistic ethics," such as they are, and all of them -- journalists, Journalism Professors, and media critics alike -- agreed that while the obligation of source confidentiality is close to absolute, it does not extend to a source who deliberately exploits confidentiality to disseminate lies to the public. Under those circumstances, it's axiomatic in journalistic ethics that a reporter is not only permitted, but required, to disclose the identity of the source who purposely used the reporter to spread lies.

There are examples where even large media outlets have followed that principle. Back in 1987, Oliver North was justifying his having lied to Congress about the Iran-contra program by complaining that Congress couldn't be trusted with National Security secrets. When asked at a Senate hearing for an example, North cited what he claimed were Congressional leaks to Newsweek about key details of a U.S. military operation to intercept an Egyptian plane carrying the men believed to be the hijackers of the Achille Lauro cruise ship.

But North was lying. It was North himself -- not Congress -- who had leaked details of that operation to Newsweek. And Newsweek, knowing that North was blatantly lying to the public by blaming Congress for leaks for which North himself was actually responsible, outed North as its source ...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/03/journalism/

[TomInTib]

1. Great article, thanks for the catch. KnR

[bemildred]

2. Unattributed statements have names: "rumors" and "gossip". nt

[struggle4progress]

3. There can sometimes be good reasons for preserving source anonymity: Watergate's

Deep Throat and similar whistle-blowers come to mind. But, of course, you are correct to note that source anonymity sometimes merely helps spread gossip and rumor. A competent news organization should be able to distinguish

[bemildred]

5. When you do business that way, that's the way your business is done.

Rome didn't fall because of the barbarians, it fell because they forgot what it meant to be Roman.
(I see your point, but I see it as one more indicator of decadence and corruption.)

[ancient_nomad]

4. This is a very good article....thanks! n/t

[autorank]

6. k*r This guy's cookin' I like it, right topic too. Rock the house.

When someone uses the status of "source" to distribute lies, they're not a "source" of anything other
than the lies; just as a president who serves after stealing two elections is not really the president.

Bust 'em or consider yourself part of the crime. It's an ugly dilemma but that's the case if there
is no real doubt that the intent was to spread lies. That's a high hurdle, as it should be. But
it's time to stop the lying that causes dying.