Tuesday, December 23, 2008
When journalists help the government go after a president
Would it trouble you to learn that one of the most famous reporters in the history of journalism allowed himself to act as the instrument of a plot by the FBI to destroy a presidency?
This is the problem with relying on anonymous sources: the story cannot be understood without knowing the source's motives. My modest proposal for reforming the ethical rules of journalism pointedly addressed this very issue.
9 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Dec 23, 11:40:00 PM:
"ethical rules of journalism"
Rules? Sometimes you think too much like a lawyer and an accountant, TH.
Journalism is a craft. Occasionally it reaches the level of art. In the end, it very often is nothing more than entertainment.
I can hear you now:
"Gee, Mr. Picasso, you're not following standard practices."
Or:
"Gee, Hunter Thompson, you're not following standard practices."
Or"
"Gee, Mr. Talese and Mr. Wolfe, the unconventional New Journalism of the 1960s and 1970s didn't follow the rules."
By the way, most of the best journalists have always hated the word "journalist." They call themselves what they are--newspaperman, reporter, editor, etc.
If you don't like what your reading, watching, hearing, you simply need to read, watch, or listen to something else.
The market decides.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Dec 24, 12:05:00 AM:
P.S. Make that "you're," not "your."
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Dec 24, 07:02:00 AM:
Well, DEC, media organizations purport to govern their journalists with ethical rules. They all have codes of conduct. Academic journalists, who confer degrees in journalism, promulgate model codes. Sure, nobody is bound by them, but the point of all these rules is to establish a standard of quality on which readers and viewers can rely. So, a way of looking at this is to say that if journalists depart from their established standards they are confessing that the quality of their product is not up to the level set by their employer. Maybe we care, maybe we do not, but if CBS News says its reporters will do one thing and they then do another, that is a useful bit of information about CBS News. Of course, another problem arises when the rules themselves are defective. I subject that in the case of the use of anonymous sources, they are defective, if the purpose of them is to defend the credibility of the media organization.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Dec 24, 07:04:00 AM:
Oops. "submit" instead of "subject" in that last sentence.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Dec 24, 08:50:00 AM:
"use of anonymous sources"
When I worked as a newsman, I never allowed people to talk "off the record." Never. No exceptions.
My attitude: If you don't want me to write about it and use your name, don't tell me about it.
And guess what? I never lost a story. It took government officials about a month to get used to my rules.
Woodward and Bernstein were young and naive. They should have wrapped up the whole Watergate thing in a few weeks, allowing no time for a cover-up.
Yes, you have to manipulate people. You have to play one source against another. Your job is to "get the story." If it's legal; you do it; if it's illegal, you don't.
And you don't worry about the consequences. (Does a defense lawyer worry about the consequences when he get a criminal off on a technicality?)
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Dec 24, 09:02:00 AM:
P.S. Make that "gets" in the last sentence.
By 
, at
Wed Dec 24, 09:42:00 AM:
From my perspective (I was in HS) Watergate was the event where a left leaning press went over to being an ally of the dems. It also seemed that after Watergate, all reporters aspired to be the next Woodward or Bernstein and methods didn't matter if they could produce a story the size of Watergate. As to the anonymous source articles or the articles with the phrase 'some say', how does the reader know if these are real sources or if the reporter is simply making them up to advance his agenda? After all, they don't have to reveal sources.
By , at
Wed Dec 24, 09:59:00 AM:
I think the question here goes beyond 'journalism' and it's actions. The real motivation behind all of behavior is born out of a desire to wield effect political power against a president the leftist media did not like. Nixon gave them the ammo they used.
Witness the effective political destruction of President Bush. Without firing a shot, the leftists have reduced this man to a mere mockery. This is the same behavior as the NYT and WAPO have used for decades.
Journalism by the msm is not a craft, nor an art. Especially it is not a search for truth. Rather it is a very powerful partisan political weapon; a perpetual witch hunt against people they don't like or with whom they don't agree.
And if the msm happens to stumble upon a fact that doesn't fit their agenda, hell, just leave it OUT.
By Mrs. Davis, at
Wed Dec 24, 02:18:00 PM:
The web will be addressing this problem ovewr the next few years.
