An Inadequate Rationale For Granting Anonymity

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:09:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Responding to Glenn Greenwald's post questioning his grant of anonynmity to Obama Administration sources, Ezra Klein gives an inadequate reply (imo of course):

[W]e are, fundamentally, dealing with a collective action problem: So long as there are journalists willing to speak with sources on background, sources can demand background for most all commentary. An individual writer -- particularly at a small outlet -- can then choose between anonymous sources or none at all. And so far as informing readers go, some sourcing is better than none.

This is unconvincing. Klein's willingness to use anonymous sourcing at the drop of a hat actually does a great disservice to journalism and to his own work. It becomes apparent that he is simply a part of the spin, not the reporting. It would be far better if he reported what was on the record, than to allow an anonymous record to be created. "Everybody does it" is no excuse. It is precisely why the Media is such a joke today. It appears Klein has chosen to be in on the joke. More . .

After defending himself, Klein then goes on to defend those seeking anonymity (see how granting access leads to getting sympathetic coverage?):

That said, this is partially our fault as a profession. Journalists frequently use official quotes not just to inform but to embarrass. . . . They understand, rightly, that the insights won't be presented as "important policy information about the health care system" so much as "political hypocrisy that can embarrass the administration." . . . And even when we're dealing with less contentious statements, too many policy types have seen honest-but-unclear quotes on complicated matters ripped from context or misrepresented. . . .

The answer then, is to say nothing. Going on background and relying on anonymity means what exactly? Indeed, Ezra's argument is contradictory - if an anonymous quote will not raise the same questions an on the record quote will, then the value of the anonymous quote is already undermined.

But more than that, it is not Ezra's job to manage public relations for the Administration - if he is being a journalist that is. If he is going to do journalism, then do journalism. If he is going to be in the Media, then that is what he should do and drop the journalistic pretense.

That was an extremely troubling response from Klein imo. He is part of the future of journalism (he will certainly be the one of next Joe Klein types, he is quite talented) and even before he gets a seat at the Big Media table, he is already compromising his journalistic standards. Imagine what he will be willing to compromise when he gets a seat at the table?

Speaking for me only

< The Illogic Of The Lobbyist Ban | A Failing Left Flank >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

An Inadequate Rationale For Granting Anonymity | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 12:23:38 PM EST

That said, this is partially our fault as a profession. Journalists frequently use official quotes not just to inform but to embarrass. . . . They understand, rightly, that the insights won't be presented as "important policy information about the health care system" so much as "political hypocrisy that can embarrass the administration." . . . And even when we're dealing with less contentious statements, too many policy types have seen honest-but-unclear quotes on complicated matters ripped from context or misrepresented. .

Was he this much in a dilemma during the Bush administration?

Well, maybe the answer is to stop (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Anne on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 03:29:24 PM EST

calling it "journalism" and start calling it what it seems to increasingly resemble: "gossip."

I mean, what's the difference? Person A tells Person B that Anonymous Person C told Person A something about Person B, and Person A can't/won't tell Person B who it was because Anonymous Person C would not have told Person A unless Person A agreed not to reveal his/her source. If Person B guesses who it was, Anonymous Person C can just deny it.

If the public read in their newspaper, or heard on TV that "sources within the administration who requested not to be named called this reporter with some juicy gossip about..." maybe it would finally dawn on people that there's very little difference between "Entertainment Tonight" and the Nightly News, or between People Magazine and the Washington Post.

It's really too bad, but I don't see it getting better any time soon.

I tried to post this comment--and (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:14:11 AM EST

BTD's entire post disappeared!

Anyhow, I do hope you get an answer to your question from those responsible.

: I deleted it (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:17:13 AM EST

as this was Ezra's response. I did not see it the first time I looked on his site.

From the sidebar bio at the Klein link, (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:28:12 AM EST

Looks to me like he already has a seat at the cable news show's round table.

In reading NYT it seems like all one has to do to achieve non-attribution is ask for it (because X wasn't authorized to speak on the record).

They keep promising to change (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:31:24 AM EST

but never will.

Access is like crack for them.


I wonder if Deep Throat really should (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:33:50 AM EST

have been shielded!


Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:37:21 AM EST

He was, in essence, a whistleblower.

A classic case where anonymity was needed.


IIRC, he did it (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:45:43 AM EST

because he was having a bureaucratic fight with someone else. I think that's the kind of thing that a reader would want to know.

OTOH, the value of the information he provided was very high.


But the thing is (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:48:14 AM EST

the information he provided was verifiable. He told them where to look. By the time the story went to press, it didn't rise or fall on the credibility of an anonymous source.


: An important point (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:51:29 AM EST

but these days we seem to rarely get anything beyond the throwaway words of an anonymous official.

As has been said elsewhere, (none / 0) (#6)
by Pacific John on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:35:49 AM EST

Klein is a walking press release. He's be more succinct if he just called himself change dot gov.

: Anonymous press release (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:38:10 AM EST

is the bigger problem.
If he can do some steno ON THE RECORD, that is worth something at least.