« "They Want Us Exterminated": savage purging of gays in Baghdad | artappraiser's Blog | Maj. Hasan at Ft. Hood: proper procedure, and ultimately lives, sacrificed partly due to political correctness? »
Josh Marshall discusses the use of anonymous sources on TPM
here, here and here, as comments on October 23 and 24 TPMDC threads.
Just thought some people who are interested in the site's policies but aren't in the habit of reading 400-comment-long threads might like to know. (I myself just happened to come across the discussions by looking at his recent comments.)
Feel free to use this thread to discuss the topic, though I probably won't participate, as my position is that I just like to know a publication's actual policy.
Advertisement
A tip if you have a slow connection like I do, one that doesn't always work well with long pages: if you don't get taken directly to his comment by the link, use your browser's search function for "Marshall" after the page loads.
October 25, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Use of anonymous sources for news reporting is not wrong; and if they were not used, the quality of news would suffer greatly.
I don't question anonymous sources just because I am opposed to what has been reported, but anytime an anonymous source is cited, I must make a value judgment about the credibility of author/news_source. I give great credence to TPM productions, which gives me a high degree of confidence in the veracity of their anonymous sources, but it would take very little for that confidence to be shaken. I still have lingering doubts about anonymous sources cited in the New York Times.
October 25, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes a huge difference if the "anonymous source" has a pony in the race...as most of them do. That caveat should always be entered for the benefit of the reader that is relying on the reporter to be fair. It is almost always true that reportage attributed to the source "appears" to be more objective than might be warranted. This appearence mixes up the objectivity of the reporter and the reputation of his publication with the customary subjectivity and/or lack objectivity of the leaker. This confusion is responsibility of the reporter not the reader. The record over the longer term on stories reported from sources is not encouraging and leads me to the conclusion that reporters are lazy or editors are more interested in deadlines or scoops than truth.
October 25, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust...but verify. Then verify some more.
C
October 25, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only trust anonymous sources when dealing with investtigative pieces. There is a world of difference between what Sy Hersh does versus what Politico and TPM have lately engaged in.
This latest nontroversy pins the tail on the problem. Anonymous party and WH officials are squirting ink in our faces. Liberal sites like TPM have an easy decision to make. When they publish the ink, they get eyeballs, and eyeballs generate revenue. Further, these sources are merely reiterating the conventional wisdom regarding all things Obama. Therefore, the veracity of the claims will be doubted by comparitively few.
Now the question is: why are the sources anonymous, and what do they have to lose by going public? In instances like these, there is very little to lose except an ass-chewing. They couldn't be fired for their honesty. Not without a backlash. Therefore, motives must be considered. And in this case, the motives of the sources are, like TPM's, win-win. If false, it generates outrage and activism, puts Obama's feet to the fire, and damages Obama's credibility so that he has to work twice as hard for the trust of the liberal base. If true, the same consequences apply.
All of this takes the gullibility of readers for granted. And that is where I am outraged. I can't help but see that places like Politico, HuffPo, and now TPM are abusing their audience's trust by cozying up to anon sources. It is obvious in this latest instance that there has been NO investigation into the veracity of the claims. How can you publish anything without at least a fig leaf of follow through?
The short answer: selling out.
October 25, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
October 26, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is so much anonymity these days that it distorts journalism.
A reporter's job is much easier if he can cozy up to official sources and publish what he's told without having to reveal the source. A politician or political operative can easily plant stories that influence public perception without having to have her named tied to the story.
It's an easy path to take, and at first everyone believes in everyone else's credibility. Following the easy path results in more stories, too. Anonymous sources provide information more freely. The reporter doesn't have to work as hard to get information, and can use the saved time to be more productive.
If the story proves to be inaccurate, no one is held accountable. The reporter can go back and say, well, I told you it was just hearsay. The politician can say to the reporter, what I told you was what I thought I knew at the time.
Easy pickin's. No harm done.
Just ask Judith Miller and the New York Times.
No harm done to anything except to the credibility of the press and the credulity of the public.
October 25, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recently commented (on another board) in a 2nd Amendment discussion regarding the Assault Weapons Ban. There were others who knew a LOT more about the subject than I do... so I really didn't have much to offer by way of personal knowledge or informed opinion... Perhaps I should have just stayed out of the discussion all together, I dunno...
But I do know a guy... I will not say his name nor give his title/position other than to say he's a Federal Agent...
I have had discussions with this fella many times as we are good friends. He told me that he HATED the Assault Weapons laws because they were very hard to prosecute ...and besides there were plenty of other laws that were very effective and easier to prosecute. He said that to the best of his knowledge, his office only used the Assault Law once, EVER... and he wasn't sure if they were successful or not.
So... I relayed that story... and there was one fella who went Apeshit on me. Telling me I was full of crap... calling me a liar.... etc...
Now... I should also say that I've been a member of this other board for a couple of years... I have been honest from day one. I almost never give such 2nd person anecdotal stories... I'll give you my opinion... and I am trusted. I've worked hard for this... I may be wrong about a lot of things... but I'm not a BS artist... I'm not out to deceive or lie...
So... here I am. I cited a "Source" when commenting. The source is real. The information I shared is true.
I suppose it's the perogative of the reader to decide whether or not to believe the "source"...
I'll try not to do that kind of comment again simply because it can be problematic.
October 26, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are lobbyists then there are lobbyists.
There are anonymous sources then there are anonymous sources.
There is Public Citizen then there is the US Chamber of Comerce.
There is Deepthroat then there is Scooter Libby.
October 26, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
like it or not everyone needs to fill up their pages with something.
this is just part of the something.
besides, no commercial web site can afford to only post fact, if they even want to.
October 26, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problem with Brian Beutler's report wasn't in the use of anonymous sources, though it didn't help that just about every news outlet reporting on the story that day had its own anonymous sources and they all seemed to contradict each other.
Rather, I think the problem was one of inferences, assumptions and characterizations. Look at the first two paragraphs of the story:
Multiple sources tell TPMDC that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause, and are continuing to push skeptical members. But they also say that the White House is pushing back against the idea, in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
"They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger," said one source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House. "they're certainly not calming moderates' concerns on opt out."
Everything I've read over the last couple days has suggested that the White House's inclination toward the trigger/Snowe compromise is borne of skepticism that the opt-out will actually get 60 votes - or more specifically, that Reid can get and hold 60 votes - while losing Snowe's.
Nothing in Beutler's report directly contradicts this interpretation, nor does it directly indicate any other motivation for the WH to push for a weaker compromise. But the punditblabber for weeks has focused on this weird notion of bipartisanship that will somehow be achieved with one R vote. As a result, everyone seemed to conclude that this report was suggesting that Obama wanted a weaker bill just for the sake of bipartisanship à la Snowe, and saw a stronger bill as a threat to that desire. Cue the cries of OMG Obama WTF Rahm etc. etc.
The biggest weakness in the story, then, is the missing "why?" Why is the WH "skeptical of opt out"? Why are they "deferential to the Snowe strategy"? I don't know whether that crucial bit of context is Beutler's fault or the sources', or somewhere inbetween. But its absence, and the surrounding atmosphere, made the story seem much more sensational that it perhaps was. Imagine if the quote had been: "They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy because that's the route they feel most certain to garner the 60 votes for cloture and ultimately move the bill to conference with the House."
Of course, all of the above presumes that the subsequent stories offering this more understandable explanation are true; they too are based mostly on anonymous sources.
October 26, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't concerned with the fact they were anonymous, more that they led to on the record denials by the White House. Shouldn't that lead to something more, as it would seem TPM has now caught someone lying....The crime is in the cover-up, after all.
October 26, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/29/jon_stewart_creates_sea_change_on_middle_east_cove/index.php
http://www.google.com/
http://www.newyorktimes.com/
October 30, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The funny thing about anonymous sources is that journos often clarify that the source was granted anonymity on the basis that the source was not authorized to speak on behalf of their employer. That raises an interesting question: How can one trust the integrity of a source when from the get go they are implictly violating a condition of employment by leaking the information they are providing?
November 6, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink