The Veil of Anonymity
Monday June 13, 2005
If the
revelation that #2 FBI chief Felt was Deep Throat wasn't enough to get editors, reporters and news consumers re-thinking the role of anonymous stories in political reporting, then the
latest Drudge rumor about Sen. Hilliary Clinton might do the trick. How did we get to this state, where the veil of anonymity distorts rather than illuminates?
It's not all Woodward and Bernstein's fault. My memory of that time (early '70s) was that Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee would not run with a story based on a single anonymous source. The reporters had to substantiate the claim, somehow. And the protection offered for "off the record" comments dealt specifically with whistleblower claims of Government Gone Bad.
We hadn't yet reached the point in journalism (or society) where gossip columns graced the front page, masquerading as "News! Hot off the Press!" Perhaps we've simply travelled full circle and find ourselves mimicking Pulitzer's and Heart's yellow journalism (oh, how time and money can put a shine on a name - 1896, after all, was a long time ago).
Standing in contrast to the battles between Pulitzer and Hearst, the New York Times shunned color, comics and entertainment; instead, it focused on finance and culture and became known as "The Grey Lady." Yet even the Times isn't immune from the anonymous source blues, as USA Today founder noted last year as USA Today said a "mea culpa."
Is there a role for anonymous sources in political journalism? I'll disagree with Neuharth and say "yes, sometimes, maybe." (He says "never" but I worry about absolutes.)
The role is, I believe, a limited one. It has to directly relate to public policy -- current or proposed -- or clear wrongdoing (Nixon's tapes tell the story, there). Gossip about someone's sex life, unless it bears directly on the above, has no place in public discourse or political reporting. (Sex-in-exchange for government jobs bears directly -- mistresses and consorts may or may not, but usually do not.)
Of course, merely reporting offsetting claims (he said/she said journalism) isn't much of an improvement if the goal of the news story is to educate and inform ... if the press is fulfilling its role of fostering citizen understanding.
We need a little Joe Friday (just the facts, ma'am) journalism. Actually, we need a lot of Joe Friday journalism. The rise and size of the blogosphere, coupled with the splintering of mainstream media into partisan "news" outlets, increases the risk of echo-chamber rumor mongering.
Maybe Neuharth is right, and we should all Just Say No to the veil of anonymity. What do you think?
It's not all Woodward and Bernstein's fault. My memory of that time (early '70s) was that Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee would not run with a story based on a single anonymous source. The reporters had to substantiate the claim, somehow. And the protection offered for "off the record" comments dealt specifically with whistleblower claims of Government Gone Bad.
We hadn't yet reached the point in journalism (or society) where gossip columns graced the front page, masquerading as "News! Hot off the Press!" Perhaps we've simply travelled full circle and find ourselves mimicking Pulitzer's and Heart's yellow journalism (oh, how time and money can put a shine on a name - 1896, after all, was a long time ago).
Standing in contrast to the battles between Pulitzer and Hearst, the New York Times shunned color, comics and entertainment; instead, it focused on finance and culture and became known as "The Grey Lady." Yet even the Times isn't immune from the anonymous source blues, as USA Today founder noted last year as USA Today said a "mea culpa."
Is there a role for anonymous sources in political journalism? I'll disagree with Neuharth and say "yes, sometimes, maybe." (He says "never" but I worry about absolutes.)
The role is, I believe, a limited one. It has to directly relate to public policy -- current or proposed -- or clear wrongdoing (Nixon's tapes tell the story, there). Gossip about someone's sex life, unless it bears directly on the above, has no place in public discourse or political reporting. (Sex-in-exchange for government jobs bears directly -- mistresses and consorts may or may not, but usually do not.)
Of course, merely reporting offsetting claims (he said/she said journalism) isn't much of an improvement if the goal of the news story is to educate and inform ... if the press is fulfilling its role of fostering citizen understanding.
We need a little Joe Friday (just the facts, ma'am) journalism. Actually, we need a lot of Joe Friday journalism. The rise and size of the blogosphere, coupled with the splintering of mainstream media into partisan "news" outlets, increases the risk of echo-chamber rumor mongering.
Maybe Neuharth is right, and we should all Just Say No to the veil of anonymity. What do you think?
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment