A story in today’s New York Times discusses an effort by the big news media to limit the use of unidentified sources, in light of discredited information used in last weeks Newsweek story about destruction of a copy of the Koran.
Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, added a new role to his portfolio last week: journalism professor.
After singling out Newsweek for its article, now retracted, on reports that interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had flushed a Koran down the toilet, Mr. McClellan broadened his critique of the magazine’s journalistic practices to apply to those at the rest of the mainstream news media.
.
Anonymous Sources are like having so source at all
Please note that this survey was conducted before Newsweek gave us such a vivid example of why anonymous sources should not be used.
Re:Anonymous Sources are like having so source at
What about stories like Watergate… that might not have seen the light of day until years later without the use of anonymous sources?
Re:Anonymous Sources are like having so source at
What happened to “the end doesn’t justify the means”?
Anonymous sourcing is no more or less questionable than the Patriot Act. Actually I take that back its much more questionable. There’s much more accountability with the government than the press.
Re:Anonymous Sources are like having so source at
I don’t think you should have a regular diet of them. But there are times when those sources are necessary. Especially when there is corruption high up the chain of command. Under those circumstances annonymity is understandable. Many career bureaucrats have families… and need to hold onto their jobs. I would disagree with your last statement.
High governmental officials seem to be much less inclined to be publically self-reflective than the editors of newspapers and other main stream media. Newsweek publically admitted it’s error. When is the last time you heard a Bush Aministration official apologize for making a mistake? And please, don’t tell me that none have been made.
Re:Anonymous Sources are like having so source at
The word I used was ‘accountability’, an apology is nothing of the sort. Newsweek apologizes so it can move on and continue making the same mistakes. Government officials can’t afford to be ‘publicly’ anything unless they risk a media feeding frenzy. The most your going to get out of *any* politician is a change in focus without actually calling it a change in focus. But there are checks and balances in government as well as elections. There is no oversight for Newsweek, there are no elections.
Re:Anonymous Sources are like having so source at
So are you arguing, by extension, that in a Capitalist system there is no accountability anywhere? What about the Market?
Re:Anonymous Sources are like having so source at
I said there was less, not none. Markets have some impact but a business doesn’t require a majority of Americans to participate in order to function.
For the record I’m not against anonymous sources I just find it interesting how quickly some are to defend it considering the hysteria over the Patriot Act. The Free Press has dones it own fair share of trampling individual’s rights and reputations.