This ABC News-bentonite story that Glenn Greenwald has been all over at Salon raises so many Big Questions For Journalism (some of which we will get into as the week progresses). Kevin Drum asks a few:
What should the standard be? 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. But should that be the standard? Or is 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? I’d say the latter.
In ABC News’s case, what point does it serve to out these people? Would it be instructive/cautionary to future lying sources, as Drum suggests? Is it just vengeance? What might be gained and lost if journalists in general adopted a you lie to me, I out you sort of ground rule? Would we get fewer leaks but leaks of higher quality? Missed stories? What if ABC News’s sources didn’t knowingly lie? If ABC News outs its sources in the face of public outrage (or, at least blogospheric outrage), what precedent does that set?
Jay Rosen and Dan Gillmor have come up with “three vital questions” for ABC News. In discussing them, Rosen writes: “But the only way that system can work is when sources know: if you lie, or mislead the reporter into a false report… you will be exposed. People who believe strongly in the need for confidential sources should be strongly in favor of their exposure in clear cases of abuse, because that is the only way a practice like this has a prayer of retaining its legitimacy.” Is he right?
To be continued…
I was wondering how long it would take you all to jump on Soxie McGreenwald's article. As hard as Soxie tries to link this to the adminstration, there is one onstrous hurdle he just cannot overcome:
Spokesman Ari Fleischer said no bentonite, which is used to prevent anthrax particles from sticking together so they can become airborne, had been found in tests. He also noted that the tests detected no aluminum, which would normally be present in bentonite-enhanced anthrax.-October 30,2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/30/anthrax.uk
So while Soxy might have a point that ABC should reveal its source, Soxy's recycled "Bush Lied" line doesnt hold much weight here.
Posted by TDC on Mon 4 Aug 2008 at 05:27 PM
TDC, you present a fine argument, up to a point. Do you think it is beyond reason to imagine that the White House used informers to release one story to ABC while presenting a separate reality to maintain plausable deniability? I'm not saying this is the case, only that it is a viable possibility to argue this given some of the ways in which the Bush White House manipulated information to press the push to war with Iraq.
As far as the exposure question is concerned, I believe one must consider the responsibility of the journalistic class. The right to a free press is guaranteed to insure an informed public. If a source lies, and therefore the public is ill informed, it is the responsibility of the press to correct this situation so that the public is properly knowledgeable. Anonymous sources may be necessary to the dissemination of factual news, and should be protected under normal circumstances, but the ultimate responsibility is to the public. When a source distorts or lies, the public should be given the utmost respect, not the source. I may mistrust the journalist who exposes a credible source, but I mistrust the entire enterprise of associated news organizations that do not hastily and completely rectify reporting mistakes or their own manipulation.
Posted by B8ovin on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 01:25 AM
I agree with Jay Rosen. The law now holds that a lawyer is bound to report her client if she has reason to believe said client has broken the law. The ethical imperative to protect a source expires as soon as (but no sooner than) the reporter has legitimate reason to believe the source is in violation of the unwritten contract between them, which requires truth-telling.
Posted by Todd Gitlin on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 09:12 AM
After reading Liz Cox Barrett's question "In ABC News’s case, what point does it serve to out these people?", I now realize that Columbia doesn't deserve it's reputation. What an idiotic question? If these sources were lied to, then out the sources sources.
The truth is ABC is a propaganda tool of the Bush Crime Family. There will be no correction here.
What happened to telling the God Damn Truth?
Fascism happened.
Posted by ROBinDALLAS on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 09:49 AM
The evidence seems overwhelmingly in favor of outing the sources. It's also been suggested that Ross is obligated to out them as obstructors of justice, as Judith Miller was compelled to do in the Plame case.
I have to wonder if TDC is actually paying attention to the particulars of this case, which raise seemingly infinite red flags at this point. The suggestion is not that "Bush Lied", but that a story was planted so that he would not have to lie, nor would he even need to be aware that a lie had been perpetrated.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 12:14 PM
I'd like to see the MSM putting such energy into tracking down "Lucy Ramirez" so that we can get to the bottom of the silly TANG story that got Dan Rather canned.
Now THERE is a "source" for you!
Posted by padikiller on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 10:05 PM