While news organizations are reassessing our business model, perhaps journalists need to reassess the journalism model.
As the media reaction to the Rolling Stone story on Gen. Stanley McChrystal has shown, journalists have become too cozy with the people they are supposed to cover. The prowlers have taught the watchdogs to roll over.
Michael Hastings uncovered the contempt that the commander leading the Afghanistan war effort had for his commander in chief and other civilian leaders. In a healthy Fourth Estate, such a scoop would merit praise and admiration from colleagues, or at least silent, respectful jealousy.
Instead, Hastings has been savaged by military brass speaking anonymously to coddling reporters and by fellow reporters questioning his ethics.
Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi had pretty much the same reaction I did to the shameless attack on Hastings by CBS foreign correspondent Lara Logan on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday. Logan ripped Hastings for violating the “trust” McChrystal and his aides placed in him. Taibbi responded with an important reminder for Logan and other reporters who trade access for silence:
You do not work for the people you’re covering!
As economic and technological changes (and failure to innovate) are causing upheaval on the business side of media, everything must be re-examined. Renewed independence and credibility could become an important asset for individual journalists and for new and transforming news organizations.
I suggest a new rule (that I thought was an old rule) for reporters: Everything is on the record unless the reporter agrees it is off the record. And conditions for going off the record (or requesting any level of confidentiality) must be strict:
- Top officials should never be off the record (with the exceptions noted in the next two bullets). They are in positions of authority and should stand by what they say.
- Anyone can go off the record in passing along information of which they don’t have first-hand or other factual knowledge (reporters need to get better sources on that information anyway, but the tip might help them find those sources).
- Reporters can protect sources who provide documents (but the reporter needs to authenticate the documents).
- Mid-level and lower-level officials can go off the record in whistle-blowing situations where their jobs or safety would be in jeopardy. This should never be an assumption, but a detailed discussion in advance of disclosures. Personal attacks made from the safety of this cover should not be published. And if the allegations are not about someone who is in a position to harm the source, no confidentiality should be granted.
Maybe I have left out a condition or two. But the promiscuity in granting confidentiality is harming the credibility of journalists, and I would be fine with the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
If the price of access is inaccurate and incomplete reporting, then access is no bargain. Our nation’s founders did not protect the press so the press could protect the government.
YES! One of the reasons people distrust the media is the perception (often earned) of a media-government complex. I can’t for the life of me understand why any journalist would want to say anything to perpetuate this notion.
LikeLike
Coincidentally, this morning I was catching up on an On The Media podcast from a couple weeks ago and caught this interview with CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry, about the pool party he and other journalists had with Joe Biden: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/06/11/06
Brook Gladstone does a very good job of repeatedly pointing out to him the major problems with the press corps being too concerned with “access” instead of reporting. But the interview repeatedly shows he just doesn’t get it. And I think you’d get similar answers from most of the corps.
LikeLike
How in the world do shield laws protect this kind of anonymity? Anyone else think this is bizarre?
I mean, aren’t shield laws supposed to enforce the constitutional idea that “the press was to serve the governed, not the governors. . . . The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”
Journalists using their legal cover to empower government to select which of its secrets are permissible to reveal? Talk about an Orwellian twist….
LikeLike
One more thought———Glenn Greenwald really nailed what I think is the primary issue in his “The Jeffrey Goldberg Media” piece on the Weigel:
LikeLike
On the topic of Jeffrey Goldberg, whatever else you may think of him, he said that one of the reasons the Dave Weigel thing happened is that Dave rose fast and didn’t have the proper amount of “toilet training.” Salon poo-pooed this idea, but then Weigel himself wrote over on Big Journalism that “It was the hubris of someone who rose — objectively speaking — a bit too fast, and someone who misunderstood a few things about his trade.”
LikeLike
I hadn’t seen Weigel accept that criticism.
Main point I’m after with the Greenwald quote is the nature of the inside/outside game being played with the rules of anonymity.
I think *merit-free fiefdom* is exactly the right description for those parts of the Fourth Estate that are working closely with their sources to try to discredit Hastings.
I think fiefdom is the right word because I think it’s obvious some journalists really are using their legal cover to empower government to hold influence over which of its secrets are permissible to reveal. And I don’t see how or why that kind of collaboration should be protected by shield laws.
LikeLike
Agreed. For more on this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512
LikeLike
[…] blog post yesterday about confidential sources represents my views on dealing with whistleblowers and […]
LikeLike
I have blogged further on this issue today, addressing questions of confidentiality and vulnerable sources: http://bit.ly/aOyWRj
A few hours after writing this post, I realized that it dealt with issues reporters should consider in dealing with powerful sources, but many important stories come from vulnerable sources, and the considerations are much different.
I also added at the end of today’s post another consideration in dealing with powerful sources:
If a source is disclosing information that is classified or covered by privacy laws, you might be justified in granting confidentiality. However, consider the factors of power and eagerness. If a powerful source is eager to disclose classified information (think Scooter Libby), the bigger story might be that person’s willingness to break the law.
LikeLike
My question’s only loosely related to the post’s primary topic, but worth a shot.
I began my first full-time (paid) reporting job last month and have already been shocked by how casually sources ask “does this have to be on the record?” I primarily cover several local governments.
Of course my reaction is yes when sources do ask whether I “need” information on the record. But I sometimes wonder if I’m missing out on some of the “secondhand knowledge” leading to other sources that you mention. Suggestions of the best way to handle these conversations?
LikeLike
Katie, congratulations on getting your first reporting job in this economy. This is the perfect time on this beat and in your career to establish the practice of working with sources primarily on the record.
You are the new reporter on this beat, and just as you are cultivating sources, they are cultivating you. Some of them don’t want to be covered in the media, but most of them do. So it’s good to let them know that your default setting is on the record.
But when they ask about whether you “need” to be on the record, that’s a great time for a conversation about your standards and how you work. Ask them how much they trust stories that are based mostly on unnamed sources. Many of them will say they don’t trust them much, and you say that’s why you need to have your sources on the record. Discuss accountability and why you want to deal with sources who will be accountable for what they tell you.
But continue the conversation. Discuss the circumstances in which you would go off the record: whistleblowing (because they might be wanting to blow the whistle now or in the future) or passing along second-hand information (this strengthens your credibility with the sources, because it lets them know that you verify facts and don’t publish something you haven’t confirmed).
One more point: In these conversations, don’t refer to “anonymous sources.” This is inaccurate terminology that too many journalists use, without realizing how it hurts our credibility. An anonymous source would be someone unknown to you, passing along a tip through a phone call or an anonymous blog comment and refusing to give you his or her name. That is truly a source lacking in credibility and no journalist would use that information as anything more than a tip (and I’ve had great stories grow from those tips, so I don’t minimize them). But the sources we’re talking about are people you know, people you know are in a position to know about the topic you’re writing about. Better to call them confidential sources or unnamed sources. This tells readers or viewers that you know who they are but that you have a reason for keeping their names confidential (and you should state the reason).
Thanks for asking, Katie. I hope this job launches you on a successful, satisfying journalism career. It’s an exciting time to be in this profession.
LikeLike
[…] Steve Buttrey on reporters who trade silence for access. […]
LikeLike
[…] Reporters need to stop trading silence for access […]
LikeLike
[…] and humanity in journalism and about plagiarism, accuracy and anonymous comments. I faulted reporters who trade silence for access to sources. I praised the Guardian’s social media policy. I said reporters should be more reluctant to […]
LikeLike
[…] Reporters need to stop trading silence for access […]
LikeLike
[…] I finish the crowdsourced advice, I’ll share the advice for young journalists from Michael Hastings, the great young journalist who died in a car accident […]
LikeLike
[…] Reporters need to stop trading silence for access […]
LikeLike