In 2003, an E&P editorial described the NYT problem with anonymous sourcing this way:
One inescapable conclusion from this scandal is that the Times has developed an addictive tolerance for anonymous sources, the crack cocaine of journalism. The Times
could not go cold turkey even in its extraordinary Mother's Day
cataloging of Blair's journalistic sins, an occasion that cried out for
100% on-the-record reporting. For no apparent reason other than habit,
an entirely innocuous e-mail message was attributed to "one fellow
reporter."
The Times appears to have been shocked out of
its complacency. After first trying to lay all the blame on Blair, the
paper's executives last week promised to implement what the Times needs most: a coherent system to keep fabrications and plagiarism out of the paper.
In February of 2004, we got the official Confidential News Sources policy, which even Dan Okrent noticed was was violated regularly. (I'm looking at you, Ms. Bumiller and Mr. Nagourney) In the wake of the second big scandal to rock the NYT in as many years, Brian Calame, the latest NYT ombudsman, wrote about anonymous sourcing in the Paper of Record:
Acting on recommendations from the independent committee created in
the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco, the paper announced a revamped
policy for the use of confidential news sources in February 2004. One
major change: Before a confidential source makes it into the paper, at
least one editor has to know the source's name.
After an internal
committee on credibility came up with more recommendations early this
year, Bill Keller, the executive editor, further tightened the
guidelines for the use of anonymous sources in June. The most notable
change, at least for me: Readers are to be told why The Times believes
a source is entitled to anonymity - a switch from the previous practice
of stating why the source asked for it.
Oh, by all means, give Keller credit for tinkering with the policy. We can't get enough tinkering. I'm put in mind of a line from a Chameleons song:
She's annoyed and she doesn't know why
By the neighour who's fixing his car
He's spent so many hours underneath it now
The bloody thing should fly.
We've been down this road before with the NYT - it looks a lot like the road Keller kicked the little Iraq problem down. Calame notices too:
There clearly is work to be done. A Page 1 article just three days ago,
for instance, offered no explanation for attributing to "a senior
administration official" the assurance that President Bush and two
other White House officials hadn't told Bob Woodward about Valerie
Plame Wilson. Mr. Woodward had disclosed earlier in the week that a
current or former Bush administration official had told him Ms. Wilson
worked at the C.I.A.
I don't know about you, but I've had more than enough of tinkering and dawdling and kicking issues around. There's nothing new in this column. But if Calame wants to make some ground on the issue of anonymous sources and why they're so dangerous, he can look at this brewing controversy that centers on a front page NYT story filled with anonymous sources:
David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and Interational
Security (ISIS) (right), recently
criticized a New York Times story
by Bill Broad and David Sanger, on the grounds that it contains a “a deep and
misleading flaw.” Broad and Sanger, Albright explained, “repeatedly characterize
the contents of computer files as containing information about a nuclear warhead
design when the information actually describes a reentry vehicle for a
missile.”
This made it sound like the US had proof Iran was designing a nuclear weapon,
which it does not. Look at it this way: Just because Ford puts seat-belts in its
automobiles, doesn’t mean they know how to build people.
Everything old is new again.
Recent Comments