Full Version: Radio station says "no" to "unnamed sources"
This one caught my eye today.
Effectively immediately and until further notice, it is the policy of KSFR's news department to ignore and not repeat any wire service or nationally published story about Iran, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia or any other foreign power that quotes an "unnamed" U.S. official.
What we have suspected and talked about at length before is now becoming clear. "High administration officials speaking on the condition of anonymity," "Usually reliable Washington sources," and others of the like were behind the publicity that added credibility to the need to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq.
...
This is a small news department with a small reach. We cannot research these stories ourselves. But we can take steps not to compromise our integrity. We should not dutifully parrot whatever comes out of Washington, on the wire or by whatever means, no matter how intriguing and urgent it sounds, when the source is unnamed.
I am also calling on our colleagues in other local news departments -- broadcast and print -- to take the same professional approach.
Now, I've always been less than enamored with "unnamed sources", especially when it deals with political issues and the like, so I think this is a good step.
Questions for debate:
1} Do you think this policy is a good idea for the media to adopt as a general rule?
2} Should the media apply this only to Washington, or across the board
3} What do you think drives the "unnamed sources"?
4} How do you think the rest of the media will respond to this suggestion?
5} If adopted mediawide, how do you think this will change the political dynamics?
Effectively immediately and until further notice, it is the policy of KSFR's news department to ignore and not repeat any wire service or nationally published story about Iran, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia or any other foreign power that quotes an "unnamed" U.S. official.
What we have suspected and talked about at length before is now becoming clear. "High administration officials speaking on the condition of anonymity," "Usually reliable Washington sources," and others of the like were behind the publicity that added credibility to the need to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq.
...
This is a small news department with a small reach. We cannot research these stories ourselves. But we can take steps not to compromise our integrity. We should not dutifully parrot whatever comes out of Washington, on the wire or by whatever means, no matter how intriguing and urgent it sounds, when the source is unnamed.
I am also calling on our colleagues in other local news departments -- broadcast and print -- to take the same professional approach.
Now, I've always been less than enamored with "unnamed sources", especially when it deals with political issues and the like, so I think this is a good step.
Questions for debate:
1} Do you think this policy is a good idea for the media to adopt as a general rule?
2} Should the media apply this only to Washington, or across the board
3} What do you think drives the "unnamed sources"?
4} How do you think the rest of the media will respond to this suggestion?
5} If adopted mediawide, how do you think this will change the political dynamics?
1} Do you think this policy is a good idea for the media to adopt as a general rule?
If it was adopted we know that Nixon would never have been caught, though he was never brought to justice, but he was forced to resign. Even with the leak the media was not able to stop him from being elected a second time.
Also remember at one point in time the CIA had about 400 reporters on their payroll.
Whistle-blowers is a critical element to stop corruption that uses power as a shield. Unnamed sources is a form of whistle-blower protection.
If it was adopted we know that Nixon would never have been caught, though he was never brought to justice, but he was forced to resign. Even with the leak the media was not able to stop him from being elected a second time.
Also remember at one point in time the CIA had about 400 reporters on their payroll.
Whistle-blowers is a critical element to stop corruption that uses power as a shield. Unnamed sources is a form of whistle-blower protection.
1} Do you think this policy is a good idea for the media to adopt as a general rule?
This would be defined in journalism textbooks as "the Fox Rule." In the movie Outfoxed, it was shown that many times FOX News anchors would use the line, "People say" and then continue on with the story as if "People say" was representative of the majority opinion. This would be a good idea for the media to adopt rules like this, with some discretion, and it would also be a good idea for some people on this board to do the same. Those that like to make statements and provide no facts other than the "Come on, you know it's true" argument.
2} Should the media apply this only to Washington, or across the board
The importance of the story should be taken into consideration. Given that most things that come out of Washington are important I think this would apply to them, but also understand that the media by nature is a mechanism of power and the Washington bureaucracy would not allow themselves to be taken to task without a response. This is nice to talk about but our government doesn't represent us and our media keeps us preoccupied. For example, I was watching FOX News as I was running on the treadmill at the YMCA this morning, not like I had a choice, and I saw a story about Rep. Jefferson from Louisiana who took bribes. That story broke over a year ago and FOX thinks it is still newsworthy and also Britney Spears shaved her head. Gives you an idea of what is important to Rupert Murdoch. I also noticed that after the Democrats voted "Yay" on the non-binding resolution CNN went live to get responses and FOX was covering the Daytona 500. There are a lot of viewers out there that don't have a clue.
3} What do you think drives the "unnamed sources"?
This question is ambiguous and need more clarification.
4} How do you think the rest of the media will respond to this suggestion?
The rest of the media outlets will laugh and continue to feed us our garbage and gossip in massive doses so that we don't realize how badly our government is wasting our tax dollars.
5} If adopted media-wide, how do you think this will change the political dynamics?
People would be less likely to make statements if they knew they would be identified because the government cannot afford to let truth get out to the public and if the government finds out who is giving the public factual information instead of spin, there would be a quick change to that. The politicians would adjust to ensure the public was left woefully ignorant. On to more important things; Who's the special guest on American Idol next week?
This would be defined in journalism textbooks as "the Fox Rule." In the movie Outfoxed, it was shown that many times FOX News anchors would use the line, "People say" and then continue on with the story as if "People say" was representative of the majority opinion. This would be a good idea for the media to adopt rules like this, with some discretion, and it would also be a good idea for some people on this board to do the same. Those that like to make statements and provide no facts other than the "Come on, you know it's true" argument.
2} Should the media apply this only to Washington, or across the board
The importance of the story should be taken into consideration. Given that most things that come out of Washington are important I think this would apply to them, but also understand that the media by nature is a mechanism of power and the Washington bureaucracy would not allow themselves to be taken to task without a response. This is nice to talk about but our government doesn't represent us and our media keeps us preoccupied. For example, I was watching FOX News as I was running on the treadmill at the YMCA this morning, not like I had a choice, and I saw a story about Rep. Jefferson from Louisiana who took bribes. That story broke over a year ago and FOX thinks it is still newsworthy and also Britney Spears shaved her head. Gives you an idea of what is important to Rupert Murdoch. I also noticed that after the Democrats voted "Yay" on the non-binding resolution CNN went live to get responses and FOX was covering the Daytona 500. There are a lot of viewers out there that don't have a clue.
3} What do you think drives the "unnamed sources"?
This question is ambiguous and need more clarification.
4} How do you think the rest of the media will respond to this suggestion?
The rest of the media outlets will laugh and continue to feed us our garbage and gossip in massive doses so that we don't realize how badly our government is wasting our tax dollars.
5} If adopted media-wide, how do you think this will change the political dynamics?
People would be less likely to make statements if they knew they would be identified because the government cannot afford to let truth get out to the public and if the government finds out who is giving the public factual information instead of spin, there would be a quick change to that. The politicians would adjust to ensure the public was left woefully ignorant. On to more important things; Who's the special guest on American Idol next week?
1} Do you think this policy is a good idea for the media to adopt as a general rule?
Yes. I have no problem with the outlet keeping the “source” confidential as long as THEY are sure that the source is credible and that the information is reliably true. This may involve having more than one “source” for the same material as corroboration.
2} Should the media apply this only to Washington, or across the board
Yes.
3} What do you think drives the "unnamed sources"?
Reporters need to get stories and people in official positions are too easily sucked into revealing classifie, or private information which often contains their “opinions” as well.
4} How do you think the rest of the media will respond to this suggestion?
Not at all.
5} If adopted mediawide, how do you think this will change the political dynamics?
Stories would be more accurate and verifiable and there might be fewer leaks of classified material.
Yes. I have no problem with the outlet keeping the “source” confidential as long as THEY are sure that the source is credible and that the information is reliably true. This may involve having more than one “source” for the same material as corroboration.
2} Should the media apply this only to Washington, or across the board
Yes.
3} What do you think drives the "unnamed sources"?
Reporters need to get stories and people in official positions are too easily sucked into revealing classifie, or private information which often contains their “opinions” as well.
4} How do you think the rest of the media will respond to this suggestion?
Not at all.
5} If adopted mediawide, how do you think this will change the political dynamics?
Stories would be more accurate and verifiable and there might be fewer leaks of classified material.
QUOTE
1} Do you think this policy is a good idea for the media to adopt as a general rule?
I don't believe that it is a good rule at all. As has been pointed out, the use of an anonymous source was responsible for the uncovering of watergate. This completely doing away with unnamed sources tosses the baby out with the bathwater when the simple answer is to just institute some fact-checking measures such as top editor check-offs and double-sourcing are simple ways that could be the answer to this.
QUOTE
2} Should the media apply this only to Washington, or across the board
3} What do you think drives the "unnamed sources"?
3} What do you think drives the "unnamed sources"?
The question is this: What is the ultimate purpose of them providing information to you? If you are a news outlet and a White House insider is trying to dish the goods on other country that the President wants to go to war with, I'd think you would know when you're being played like Chris Matthews and being used for other purposes. . .theirs!.
If someone is a "whistleblower" then I think you would run with that, if they could provide you with items that you can double check on and find to be true. A key component would be to see if they can provide a brief working history with you where the information was accurate.QUOTE
4} How do you think the rest of the media will respond to this suggestion?
Unless you work for a media outlet that has been burned on a a particular issue of misreporting, I don't believe it will affect the rest of the media world. They feel that their own system of fact checking works and in some cases, it probably does.
QUOTE
5} If adopted mediawide, how do you think this will change the political dynamics?
This topic has been around for awhile, I can't say that there has been a lot of publicity about this. Given that fact, I doubt it will change the political dynamic all that much.
QUOTE
This completely doing away with unnamed sources tosses the baby out with the bathwater when the simple answer is to just institute some fact-checking measures such as top editor check-offs and double-sourcing are simple ways that could be the answer to this.
As I read it, the policy being adopted by the radio station applies to third party material, not material developed by the radio station itself. As a result, it wouldn't necessarily apply to Watergate, where the Washington Post would have been within the bounds of this policy. The reason for the differentiation is exactly the practical difficulties of what you posit as a solution, "top editor check offs and double sourcing". An individual radio station or small town newspaper doesn't have the resources to do either regarding a story 2,000 miles away.
1} Do you think this policy is a good idea for the media to adopt as a general rule?
No I do not think it is a good policy as a general rule. I think that one can discern from the different arguments in this thread that there are both positives and negatives to unnamed sources. There are times where it could be a positive like in Watergate and times where it is a negative because the news is just made up.
I think that all unnamed sources should face the strictest scrutiny especially in cases where the allegations or information is sensitive. We cannot allow crazy allegations be legitimized by unnamed or anonymous sources and we cannot allow important information to be left out of the print.
Its a double edged sword that should be up to the disgression of the editor of the newspaper. I have faith in the freedom of the press and think that editors who want to maintain the integrity of their paper will scrutinize the sources to ensure they are legit. Politics is a dirty business and the press can be a catalyst or a brick wall. We need to have faith in their ability to bring important information to the public or else what are we doing with this democracy thing?
No I do not think it is a good policy as a general rule. I think that one can discern from the different arguments in this thread that there are both positives and negatives to unnamed sources. There are times where it could be a positive like in Watergate and times where it is a negative because the news is just made up.
I think that all unnamed sources should face the strictest scrutiny especially in cases where the allegations or information is sensitive. We cannot allow crazy allegations be legitimized by unnamed or anonymous sources and we cannot allow important information to be left out of the print.
Its a double edged sword that should be up to the disgression of the editor of the newspaper. I have faith in the freedom of the press and think that editors who want to maintain the integrity of their paper will scrutinize the sources to ensure they are legit. Politics is a dirty business and the press can be a catalyst or a brick wall. We need to have faith in their ability to bring important information to the public or else what are we doing with this democracy thing?
QUOTE
Its a double edged sword that should be up to the disgression of the editor of the newspaper. I have faith in the freedom of the press and think that editors who want to maintain the integrity of their paper will scrutinize the sources to ensure they are legit. Politics is a dirty business and the press can be a catalyst or a brick wall. We need to have faith in their ability to bring important information to the public or else what are we doing with this democracy thing?
You'll be wise to remember that the leader of the pack died on the back of a motorcycle. It was a terribly sad but telling moment in pop music history. Testosterone will get you killed, hated, or honked at far more frequently than it will say, get you laid or lead you to some kind of hubris-drenched victory.
The Ancient Greek Chorus concurs.
I actually agree in part with Leders approach here. Ignore the fact that this is a small news outlet whose editor stated himself that they can't afford to "scrutinize the source to ensure they are legit." Then, carry on from there.
Har, har.
I think this is a great move on behalf of KSFR, and while I wonder how much of my opinion is based on my political distrust for the adminstration passing these unnamed sources along, I think this sends a pretty clear message to the White House that they have to earn their constituents' faith in their ability to bring important information to the table.'
I wish some larger news orginazations would do the same, just for while. Liberal or conservative its hard not to feel that Cheney's unsourced connections between Saddam and 9/11 were at the very least overblown if not border-line invented, and the most powerful tool the press has in such a democracy is to straight up take the camera off the bully pulpit. The real criminals in this case are the Wolf Blitzers and the Sean Hannitys and Tom Brokaws who just patently ran with whatever came out of the White House years ago when it actually mattered. Which is nothing new to American history-- from the USS Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin -- but at least KSFR's not trying to repeat it.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.