And that, my friends, is what you call a rant!
Jesus, you go paradox!
Posted by MisterOpus1 at June 1, 2005 01:39 PMActually, anonymous sources can be valuable: The reporters, though, must expose sources who use the press to spread lies. Otherwise, they become complicit in spreading propaganda.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 1, 2005 01:59 PMYeah, and I can walk to New York this summer.
It's not happening, Matt, we're getting royally screwed by these propagandists and the country is vanishing before our very eyes because of it.
Journalists are not to be trusted. They abused that trust for so long they lost it irrevocably. God am I sick of being lied to.
Posted by paradox at June 1, 2005 02:07 PMJournalists are not to be trusted.
Well, that's a much bigger problem than just anonymous sources.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 1, 2005 02:10 PMI don't recall that WaPo ever put a Deep Throat quote in the paper. He just gave Woodward & Bernstein leads. Woodward & Bernstein had to follow up on them; they never would've published on just Deep Throat's word.
Posted by geeno at June 1, 2005 02:44 PMthey never would've published on just Deep Throat's word.
Ah, the good old days...
Posted by at June 1, 2005 03:17 PMIn re the government; I think the major role of the media is to let the public know what is going on. If there's a hot rumor out there, I think the public should know. If the media knows something to be fact, print it as fact. If something is being alleged with plausible cause, print it as an allegation. The workings of government need be held to constant scutiny. If the press can't print anything lacking multple upfront sourcing, all we'll get is what the government wants us to have. Nothing worse than a selective press.
Posted by ken melvin at June 1, 2005 03:30 PMI think the major role of the media is to let the public know what is going on. If there's a hot rumor out there, I think the public should know.
Like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes being engaged?
What do Dawson and Pacey think?
Posted by muckdog at June 1, 2005 04:10 PMAlterman's right on this. Used judiciously, anonymous sources can provide information that might not otherwise see the light of day. Deep Throat might not have been quoted, but information he gave them was used, as long as it could be reliably confirmed.
The trick is not just taking the source's word for it. A journalist using an anonymous source is supposed to check the information, and use heaping helpings of discretion. But, under the right circumstances, they are necessary.
Posted by Captain Salty at June 1, 2005 05:20 PMI'm not willing to sacrifice the integrity of the profession just for those magical correct circumstances. Oy, look what Ken Starr and Karl Rove have done and yet y'all still want to keep this insane lying system?
I find it remarkable that I, a mere profane tech laborer, would be so vociferous in my defense of integrity for a profession that's not my own. Well, the fuckers defend the public good, so I care.
Mr. Alterman has been a peerless critic of modern journalism, and it's unfortunate he got the broadside of my concern in this matter. I still stand by what I say.
Posted by paradox at June 1, 2005 05:25 PM"News is what powerful people don't want you to hear. Everything else is publicity." —Bill Moyers
Of course, we could just take the word of all who will go on record and have nothing to lose by doing so. Isn't that what PR people are for?
Actually, Deep Throat never gave out information. He would only confirm information/questions that Woodward and Berstein had. If they were going in the wrong direction, Deep Throat would tell them know. Follow the money was always the key point made by Deep Throat. I long for someone like Deep Throat to do the right thing again.
Posted by Judith at June 1, 2005 06:20 PMI remember watching those hearing and the Iran-Contra affair and I wonder, why so many equated the manifestly undemocratic activities -- given that Gordon (who is he to talk) disagrees -- of Clinton to Nixon.
The damage that both Nixon (I live with a Nixon apologist and am slowly wearing him down -- this bit helpss) and Reagan did to the presidency is reflected in the Clinton empeachment. The hypocracy of it all disappoints me. The twisted logic necessary to explain is more than i can generate now.
Connect the dots. The Pentegon Papers, the lies, the cya. It is all there now.
Posted by Dora at June 1, 2005 09:01 PMActually, I think we do need some anonymous sources - just think of what this article would have been about if Seymour Hersh hadn't used anonymous sources to explain what was happening in the runup to the war in Iraq. Look at this sentence:
According to two of those present at the briefing, which was highly classified and took place in the committee’s secure hearing room, Tenet declared, as he had done before, that a shipment of high-strength aluminum tubes that was intercepted on its way to Iraq had been meant for the construction of centrifuges that could be used to produce enriched uranium.
This article was published on March 31, 2003 - and was extremely timely on what happened. I was able to take many clues in this article and find documentary evidence that the story he told was true even though I never found out who those 2 sources were.
The problem really comes down to taking anonymous sources with a ton of salt and then use the credibility of the journalist and the accuracy of their pieces to judge whether their use of sources is a pack of lies or not.
Posted by Mary at June 1, 2005 11:02 PM