Thursday, August 16, 2007
Why We No Longer Trust the Anonymous Source
Historian and classicist Victor David Hanson has a good rundown of the false stories that have been published in the various media from anonymous sources. They include, most recently, the 'Scott Thomas' Baghdad Diaries (and more importantly the 5 anonymous soldiers who, the TNR editors claim, back the stories--we need some cross examination of them and we need to know who they are to do it). Blasts from the media's infamous past include Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris; Michael Isakoff's Koran in the toilet lie, and Dan Rather's personal computer printed memos from before PCs existed.
Hanson has particularly good analysis of the history of these recent false stories. Behold:
If an "I accuse" author like Scott Thomas Beauchamp or Michael Scheuer avoids using his own name, or reporters like Dan Rather or Michael Isikoff won't name a source for a potentially history-changing story, there is often a good suspicion why: They apparently don't look forward to questions about why -- and how exactly -- they wrote what they wrote.
Instead, anonymity gives them free rein as judge and jury, exempt from cross-examination. This "trust me" practice goes against the very grain of the American tradition of allowing the aggrieved the right to face his accusers.
The likelihood of being duped by a source goes way down if the source is named, I believe, and objectively that seems a reasonable belief.
Hanson also notes that the pushers of false scoops don't do so well:
Sometimes the result of this increasing abuse is more lasting damage to the authors than any temporary discomfort of fending off cross-examination. Beauchamp is now a disgraced storyteller. The New Republic has lost whatever credibility it had regained after its embarrassment several years ago of printing false stories by Stephen Glass, the lying reporter who likewise used anonymous sources.
Scheuer sounds goofier each time he gives an interview -- and the credibility of his once anonymously written "Imperial Hubris" shakier and shakier. Isikoff has never quite recovered his journalistic reputation. We all know what happened to Dan Rather.
Michelle Malkin has a similar tale regarding another anonymous source for Ellen Goodman's 'good' writing here, as well as a tasty take on the Beauchamp TNR fables with good links.
From Mack the Knife
Und die einen sind im Dunkeln
Und die anderen sind im Licht
Doch man sieht nur die im Lichte
Die im Dunkeln sieht man nicht
And some are in darkness
And the others are in light
But you only see those in light
Those in darkness you don't see
If the source wants to stay in darkness, we don't believe the source. It's as simple as that.
Hanson has particularly good analysis of the history of these recent false stories. Behold:
If an "I accuse" author like Scott Thomas Beauchamp or Michael Scheuer avoids using his own name, or reporters like Dan Rather or Michael Isikoff won't name a source for a potentially history-changing story, there is often a good suspicion why: They apparently don't look forward to questions about why -- and how exactly -- they wrote what they wrote.
Instead, anonymity gives them free rein as judge and jury, exempt from cross-examination. This "trust me" practice goes against the very grain of the American tradition of allowing the aggrieved the right to face his accusers.
The likelihood of being duped by a source goes way down if the source is named, I believe, and objectively that seems a reasonable belief.
Hanson also notes that the pushers of false scoops don't do so well:
Sometimes the result of this increasing abuse is more lasting damage to the authors than any temporary discomfort of fending off cross-examination. Beauchamp is now a disgraced storyteller. The New Republic has lost whatever credibility it had regained after its embarrassment several years ago of printing false stories by Stephen Glass, the lying reporter who likewise used anonymous sources.
Scheuer sounds goofier each time he gives an interview -- and the credibility of his once anonymously written "Imperial Hubris" shakier and shakier. Isikoff has never quite recovered his journalistic reputation. We all know what happened to Dan Rather.
Michelle Malkin has a similar tale regarding another anonymous source for Ellen Goodman's 'good' writing here, as well as a tasty take on the Beauchamp TNR fables with good links.
From Mack the Knife
Und die einen sind im Dunkeln
Und die anderen sind im Licht
Doch man sieht nur die im Lichte
Die im Dunkeln sieht man nicht
And some are in darkness
And the others are in light
But you only see those in light
Those in darkness you don't see
If the source wants to stay in darkness, we don't believe the source. It's as simple as that.
Labels: Media; false stories
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:49 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
You mean Mr. Felt? I'm willing to give anonymity to bona fide whistleblowers, but then you don't get to report on it until the cat is out of the bag and other people are investigating and talking about the 'dirt.' I don't think that will actually happen, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home
