Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Shouldn’t Reporters Be Angry When Their Anonymous Sources Lie?
Hello Ricochet folks, thanks for opening this! I’ve been a silent, lurking, paying member for seven years because I want to fund my favorite podcasts and I’ve never had anything interesting to contribute. After reading the following, you may conclude that I still don’t have anything interesting to contribute.
I understand that it may sometimes be legitimate to report stories that are anonymously sourced. Such sources may be more reasonably used when the reporter knows the source’s job title and proximity to the details in question, or perhaps when a source has previously earned the reporter’s trust. I’m curious, however, about a few things:
- What obligation does a reporter have to an anonymous source who provides information that is later proven to be false?
- Should such a source be “outed” by the reporter?
- For what reason would a reporter continue to protect the anonymity of a source that intentionally caused them to report erroneously?
- If a reporter is made aware that an anonymous source has lied, should the reporter be additionally obligated to determine whether other stories have been furnished by the now-tainted source?
- Should news consumers be alerted to other stories — that the reporter now knows — should be treated with additional suspicion?
Two recent examples…
Example 1: Comey sought more resources for Russia probe days before he was fired by President Trump
- Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry By Matthew Rosenberg and Matt Apuzzo | May 10, 2017 | Source = “… four congressional officials …”
- Comey Had Asked for More Money for FBI’s Russia Investigation By Ken Dilanian | May 10 2017 | Source = “… a senior congressional official with direct knowledge …”
- Comey sought more resources for Russia probe days before he was fired by President Trump, officials say By Ashley Parker | May 10 | Source = “… two officials with knowledge of the discussion …”
We have subsequently learned that:
- The Justice Department has flatly denied that Comey met with Rosenstein to ask for more resources. “I want to address the media claims that the FBI asked for additional resources for the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. I’m not aware of any such request,” Rosenstein said, according to his released remarks.
- The anonymous claim appears to have been made with ignorance of how the Bureau manages finances and resources. The FBI’s resource requests are made in their budget. They don’t make case-specific requests in the middle of the budget period.
So now,
- Shouldn’t we hear about the “… four congressional officials …” who victimized the unsuspecting Matthew Rosenberg and Matt Apuzzo?
- Shouldn’t we hear about the “… senior congressional official with direct knowledge …” who made a fool of well-intentioned Ken Dilanian?
- Shouldn’t we hear about the “… two officials with knowledge of the discussion …” who bamboozled Ashley Parker?
- If not, shouldn’t these reporters be asked to explain why not?
Example 2: Comey never told Trump that he was not under investigation
Comey expected to refute Trump By Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus, CNN
We have subsequently learned that:
- Comey testified that he personally told President Trump he was not under investigation on three occasions.
So now, shouldn’t Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus be motivated to tell us who hoodwinked them? If not, shouldn’t they be asked to explain why not?
Published in Politics
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Good questions. And this is why Ricochet – to air thoughtful views not brought up by the pundit class.
Should reporters be angry when their anonymous sources lie? Yes, at least from a purely mercenary standpoint. The accumulation of wrong information based on anonymous sources (plus the obvious bias) has severely damaged the economic value of those reporters. Because I and many other people no longer believe what these reporters “report,” we no longer buy the publications in which those reporters report. So the reporters should be finding that their marketability greatly reduced, which reduces the price the reporters can get (either salary or piece-work price). The lying dishonest sources cost the reporters, so, yes, they should be angry at those dishonest sources.
@cdor
Do really mean this? Because saying you haven’t read something, but it was interesting could be construed as sarcasm.
For most of American history almost all journalism was yellow journalism. There was a brief period in the 20th century in which some newspapers tried to be more objective and what we think of to day as acting ethically and writing properly sourced stories. There were always tendentious exceptions, of which the NYT suppressing news of the Holodomor because it was more important to show that Communism was working was one of the most egregious. The tide began to turn for good with Viet Nam and Watergate, and now the Washington Post is Jeff Bezos’ megaphone and the NYT is fully engaged in leftist yellow journalism.
One point. I do think that this is what Trump is talking about when he mentions libel laws. The media are printing stuff that have no relation to the truth and people get hurt for them doing it. These unsourced rumors have opened investigations that are going to cost people money to defend themselves from. This stuff is destroying people and making it harder for good people to enter public life.
An anonymous source told me that Ricochet was going to comp my membership, add me to staff, and send me a monthly stipend.
(I suspect that many of the anonymous sources some reporters like to quote do not actually exist, either.)
You, too?
That would be lying. I suspect that most of it comes off of Facebook and twitter.
I was having a little fun with Andrew @zinmt. As you can see from a following post, I proceeded to read and very much appreciate his OP.
You guys should know that you’ll be working for me, at least that what my anonymous source told me.
In the NYT I believe they call that “news fit to print”
Here’s an example of how they fit it:
That’s a look at how the media staged the “Mulsims against Hate” demonstration in London.
In that case, I want a raise.
You’re fired.