John Dickerson: "You Can't Have a Press That Works, or Functions, without Anonymous Sources"

Now comes Media Matters for America, bringing the following paragraph from Time of October 13, 2003, and asking why Time did not include something like the boldfaced sentence I have added to the end of the paragraph:

TIME Magazine Archive Article -- Leaking With A Vengeance: What shook up the intelligence community also roiled the capital and set in motion the now familiar chain of scapegoating and backstabbing that has poisoned the past two presidencies. Having fumbled around in the drawer for months looking for a weapon to use against Bush, the Democrats saw an opening. On top of a moody economy, a messy war, a swelling budget deficit and a deeply polarized electorate, the leak charges came as Bush's poll numbers had sunk to the lowest point in his tenure. Indeed, with the presidential election a little more than a year away, only 37% of Americans believe the country is on the right track, according to the latest New York Times/CBS poll. When word spread last week that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was launching a full criminal probe into who had leaked Plame's identity, Democrats immediately raised a public alarm: How could Justice credibly investigate so secretive an Administration, especially when the investigators are led by Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose former paid political consultant Karl Rove was initially accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak? A TIME review of federal and state election records reveals that Ashcroft paid Rove's Texas firm $746,000 for direct-mail services in two gubernatorial campaigns and one Senate race from 1984 through 1994. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said accusations of Rove's peddling information are "ridiculous." Says McClellan: "There is simply no truth to that suggestion." But Time reporters have good reason to believe that McClellan's denials are not accurate.

The paragraph without the boldfaced sentence at the end--the paragraph, that is, that Time actually published--is, Media Matters asserts and I agree, misleading. At least three people who worked on the Time story--Michael Duffy, Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, and quite possibly more--knew that McClellan's statement was false. Yet the words of the paragraph Time published don't say or hint that it was false.

Now comes Media Matters once again, giving us John Dickerson's attempt to explain to Al Franken why it would have been unethical for Time to set its readers straight by adding that last, boldfaced, sentence to the paragraph.

I think Dickerson's explanation is completely unsuccessful:

Media Matters:

FRANKEN: [T]here [were] things like quoting Scott McClellan saying the White House had nothing to do with this, that kind of thing, where you guys knew that he was not telling -- that what he was saying wasn't true. And that you allowed it to stand without saying, "We know this not to be true."... [T]here are some people a little peeved....

DICKERSON: Yes, there are some people peeved about that.... [T]he reason you can't just come out and say, "They're big liars, they're big liars," is because you end up giving up a source....

FRANKEN: Do you really give up the source, or do you just go, "They're big liars, they're big liars, but we won't say who"--

DICKERSON: Well, you can't do that, because you can't, for one of two reasons. One, you've got to show your proof, you can't just say "They're big liars, and we know something you don't, and that's--but we're not going to say any more." And if you say we do know they're liars, when they're talking about whether Karl Rove was involved or not, the only way--

FRANKEN: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, why can't you say, "They're big liars, they're big liars," and not show your proof? Because you don't show your proof all the time.

DICKERSON: Well, but you can't, you can't say, in that instance, it's--if you say, "We're certain we know," there's only one way you could be, or in this case, when you're talking about Karl Rove, there are only ways, you know there's, if you know, you know it's Karl. I mean, you can't--

FRANKEN: Well, you're in an odd position, because you guys are--

DICKERSON: You are in an odd position, I guess, but the larger point is this: You have a source, and you make an agreement with that source not to blow their identity. That, you have to keep that agreement. And the reason you do that, even in a situation where some people may, for all those people who may hate Karl Rove and this White House and want them to be outed, you've got to remember that the same protections are the ones that protected the people who came forth about the NSA wiretapping. And people come forward about things all the time knowing their cover isn't going to get blown. Sometimes it's in an instance that people would like, because it uncovers an NSA wiretapping scheme that they don't think is appropriate, and in some cases it protects people that they hate and would like to see run out on a rail. But you can't pick and chose....

FRANKEN: Can't you just, like, hint--

DICKERSON: You can't have a, you can't have a, you can't have a situation, you can't have a press that works, or that functions, without anonymous sources.

FRANKEN: I understand.

DICKERSON: I mean, maybe in a perfect world, we'd like no anonymous sources ever--

FRANKEN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

DICKERSON: --and it's all, but you can't, if one person decides, well, I'm going to break this because in this instance it's compelled, now, of course, I mean, if it's a murder, or some other--situation, perhaps you have a situation where you're saving lives by breaking a confidence, that's another matter. But in this, but in, in order for the system to stay whole, you have to keep your promises.

Dickerson says that the system will break down if reporters don't keep their promises to confidential sources, and that those promises prohibit them from hinting that McClellan's false statements are in fact false. But it's not that easy. The system also breaks down when readers think reporters are misleading them.

In fact, I think the system has already broken down.

Can I ever read another article by Dickerson without a voice whispering in the back of my brain: "Is Dickerson's dance with his sources leading him to mislead me?"?

Comments

[Howard]

not only has the system already broken down, it's a system that should never have been erected in the first place.

there is only one justification for anonymous sources: to protect whistleblowers.

anyone who isn't a whistleblower doesn't deserve anonymity; if that means they won't talk, so be it. let the reporters who think the lesson of watergate reporting was "get anonymous sources" find another line of work, because the lesson of watergate reporting was nothing of the sort.

instead, it was "use sources to find on-the-record material that provides the truth to the reading public."

admittedly, this means that reporters would have to, like, listen to hearings and read reports and other things like that, and some of today's crop are smiply not up to the task. so be it: what have they done to deserve continued employment other than enable thugs, miscreants, and the powerful....

[miriamsong]

Let's say Dickerson's right, that you can't risk exposing your source. I don't believe it at all, but let's just say it.

If you are a *real* reporter and you know someone is lying, but you can't say anything more about it, you make it clear to the liar that you know he's lying, and you go to your colleagues and you tell them who's lying and you tell your readers from that point on every single time you think that person is lying. You undercut that liar every chance you get, and you make sure he knows that it's because he's a liar.

You DON'T continue to roll over for every lie from the same source, month in and month out.

These people piss me off. We're paying their salaries, and they're lying to us to keep their natty careers in the pink. Thanks God for bloggers!

[RT]

1) Yes, the system is broken.

2) First of all, they've got to be willing to burn confidential sources that lie to them.

3) In this particular situation, which doesn't involve a lie by the confidential source, but rather by a public source essentially covering for the confidential source, Dickerson & Co. had all sorts of options open to them.

First and easiest option was to simply attribute the equivalent of the boldfaced sentence to a "senior administration official," which would have been 100% accurate without burning Rove as their source. E.g. "According to a senior administration official who has spoken with Time, McClellan's denials are incorrect."

They'd be able to attribute this to Rove, cloaked as a SAO, since by revealing the Plame info to them to begin with, Rove effectively provided the information in July that incontrovertibly proved that Scotty was talking out his ass.

A second, more difficult route would be to go back to Rove and insist that he tell Scotty what he knows. If McClellan then retracts his denials, that's your story, and life is good. If not, you explain to Rove in advance, it's his ass that's on the griddle: since he outranks Scotty in the Administration hierarchy, Time's going to regard Scotty's lie on his behalf (intentional or not) as Rove's lie, and if he lies, his cover gets blown.

I can see why a reporter wouldn't want to follow the second route: while it may be the path of greater integrity, it may also be a career-buster. But the first option was wide open, and Dickerson and his colleagues could and should have taken advantage of it. To not do so was to lie to their readership.

[Ellen1910]

In the first place why print Scott McCleland's remark.

The only statement of McCleland's worth printing is as follows: "I spoke with Rove and he swears he told no reporters anything about Plame/Wilson."

Time should print that statement (it becomes a matter of history) and without rebuttal (Time is not in the business of criminal investigations).

Off the point: Is there evidence, at least from what McCleland has said, that McCleland spoke to Rove and Rove told McCleland he wasn't involved?

[eRobin]

there is only one justification for anonymous sources: to protect whistleblowers.

anyone who isn't a whistleblower doesn't deserve anonymity;

It's no more complicated than that. And if the whistleblower is found to be lying, you burn him/her too.

[Jim Dandy]

The system is not “broken”, at least not yet. It’s a system with two different types of business models, each working pretty well in its own sphere.

The archetype of the first model is represented by the modus operandi of post-Watergate Bob Woodward. He is the top gun who thrives on being able to move freely among the inner circle of the Washington elite and, from that exalted position, get all the juicy pieces of information that go into best seller books and front-page headlines in the Post. There are others in the pecking order below him, followed by small-time operators who feed on the tid-bits they get lower down in the food-chain from rubbing shoulders with members of the outer circle. In order to remain members of the Club and preserve their place in the pecking order, they all have to stay pretty close to the message being handed out to them. If they step too far out of line, they pay heavy penalties, personal and professional (made heavier by a hard-driving task master like Rove).

The other archetypical model is represented by the modus operandi of Sy Hersh (a life-long and current practitioner) and, sad to say, the long-gone team of Woodward-Bernstein in the Watergate era. This model rests on being willing to resist the temptations and rewards of club membership, and doing the hard work of digging for information, regardless of where it leads, publishing hard-hitting reports, and having the courage to face the consequences.

There are not many representatives of the second model around nowadays, because it is hard work, the rewards are not great, and perhaps it takes a personality-type not commonly found (think I. F. Stone in an earlier era). Also, media concentration has tended to squeeze out mavericks and homogenize the rest. And Woodward’s path to glory acts as a forceful lesson to new entrants.

The first model has always been ascendant. But in recent times it has tightened its grip. I think this is due, in no small part, to the “post-9/11 syndrome” that has taken hold here in Washington. But a crucial difference is made by the widely-dispersed enforcement mechanisms of the Bush administration and the ruthlessness of its chief enforcers. Perhaps that’s what creates the impression of a “broken” system.

The emerging blogosphere is a new challenge to this system. We can already see some of its effects and it offers the potential for making a bigger impact. But given the forces holding up the existing system, it would take much more than this to “break” that system. We’ll see what happens if political fortunes change after the mid-term elections and again in 2008.

[Thingumbob Esq.]

These reporters seem to be astonishingly in the mold of what was reported of the Society of Jesus by Blaise Pascal some centuries ago in his anonymous Provincial Letters. You see the members of the society may lie, cheat, commit murder, and all sort of lesser peccadilloes, etc. -- so long as their intention is to protect their sacred brotherhood. I.e., the Jesuits get a pass on what us mere mortals would surely burn in hell for. Sound familiar? The more the world changes, the more it stays the same.

[Kate G]

What about I.F. Stone? He did it all with a careful reading of the congressional record and other printed, public sources and the occasional shrewd phone call to low level people to talk about their specialities. The fact of the matter is you don't need secret sources or anonymous sources at all, most of the time. Its not as if Abramoff and his clients were a secret matter--hell they were getting puff pieces written about them and what they were doing all along. You just have to be willing to ask, and ask again, "cui bono" and to assume you are being lied to again and again.

That is why I think bloggers are the new I.F. Stone and why, I think, the press are so frightened of them. There is literally not a single thing an official reporter can do that a blogger couldn't do and there are, apparently, many many things that an official reporter would not do--for example priviliging future sources over present publication of facts--that a blogger would never do.

Kate G.

fair warning, I'm related to I.F. Stone.

[Kate G]

sorry, that last but one sentence is a bit off It should read: "there is literally not a single thing an official reporter can do that a blogger couldnt' do and there are, apparently, many many things that an official reporter *would do* --for example priviliging future sources over present publication of facts--that a blogger would never do."

[Tad Brennan]

Why not a new Hippocratic Oath for reporters, beginning:

first, print no lies?

I mean, what other reportorial functions could you perform, that would justify the dissemination of lies?

[anne]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DA1F3DF93BA25752C0A96E948260

January 18, 1988

'The Trial of Socrates'
By CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT

THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES.
By I. F. Stone.

SOCRATES' drinking of the hemlock in 399 B.C. must surely be counted among the most dramatic acts of human history. Yet is anyone clear on why exactly the ancient Greek philosopher insisted on accepting his death sentence from the Athenian court when he could probably have escaped into exile, or on what the events were that led to his indictment and trial in the first place?

Plato, who made Socrates the hero of his famous dialogues, seems to suggest his mentor got into trouble for exhorting his fellow citizens to virtue. Some classical scholars take literally the apparent language of the court's indictment, which, according to Plato's paraphrase of it in his ''Apology,'' read in part that ''Socrates is a wrongdoer because he corrupts the youth'' of Athens. Still others focus on the second part of the indictment, that Socrates ''does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings,'' and suggest he was only the most famous victim in a wave of persecutions aimed at irreligious philosophers.

The issue has continued to tantalize posterity, and now I. F. Stone has joined the chase in his 12th book, ''The Trial of Socrates.'' Why is this maverick journalist, this dogged civil libertarian, this one-man investigative gang who put out I. F. Stone's Weekly for 19 years, this author of such books as ''Underground to Palestine'' (1946), ''Hidden History of the Korean War'' (1952), ''The Haunted Fifties'' (1964) and ''The Killings at Kent State'' (1971), suddenly grazing in the peaceful pastures of ancient history?

The answer is itself a complicated story involving...a lifelong passion for philosophy that led him to fall ''in love with the Greeks,'' and a need to understand how the trial of Socrates could have happened in so free a society as in his beloved Athens. How could it have happened? One can give away his answer because there's so much more to his book than the conclusions he arrives at. Essentially, Mr. Stone reasons, Socrates was put on trial because he didn't believe in democracy as the city-state of Athens practiced it, but rather in an absolutist form of leadership by ''the one who knows.'' What precipitated his indictment at the age of 70 were the upheavals brought on by the Peloponnesian War and the threat in 401 B.C. of yet another takeover by anti-democratic people who had been students of Socrates and whose like had seized leadership in 411 and 404.

As for why Socrates refused to defend himself and provoked the court into imposing his death sentence: Mr. Stone believes that the philosopher wished to die in any case and that to have articulated the defenses available to him, such as the right of free speech, would have meant conceding democratic principles to a system he held in contempt.

Now, the portrait of Socrates that emerges from Mr. Stone's reasoning is far from flattering....

[auto]

I don't read Time magazine so I'm not quite getting what Dickerson's defending.

Is he saying McClellan's the confidential source he's protecting even though Scott lied to him about Rove's involvement?

Or is he saying that Time has another source in the White House who told them that Scott is lying but to supply additional details would risk compromising that source?

If it's the first, then Dickerson's an asshole.

[derek]

Dickerson says that in order not to reveal their anonymous sources, he and his fellow journalists are compelled to write exactly what they would have written if they had no such sources.

I think this is bullshit. The most famous anonymous source of the twentieth century, "Deep Throat", provided material that the journalists investigating the Nixon administration were happy to use, even though they must have known Nixon was quite ruthless enough to do anything necessary to find and shut that source down. The existence of a source was so well known that he had a nickname. Following Nixon's resignation, that source was the subject of intense curiosity, and yet his identity was not revealed until recently, with the agreement of the source himself. I think Dickerson protests overmuch.

We're often told tales of governments at war prepared to accept enemy attacks rather than reveal their intimate knowledge of enemy movements, but even they acted on the intelligence they received to win the war, else what was the point of gathering it?

It makes me wonder what Dickerson and his friends think the point of having sources is, if not to inform their readers. Have they simply stopped being reporters at all, and is this just a game they play using the revenue that the hundreds of thousands of WaPo readers provide? How long do they expect the revenue to continue flowing in under such circumstances?

[liberal]

Kate G wrote, "What about I.F. Stone? He did it all with a careful reading of the congressional record and other printed, public sources and the occasional shrewd phone call to low level people to talk about their specialities. The fact of the matter is you don't need secret sources or anonymous sources at all, most of the time."

Yes, this is what I was thinking.

[Ginger Yellow]

The whole point (in theory) of "the system" is to relay information that it is in the public interest to reveal to your readers. If the system causes you to knowingly mislead your readers then the system is broken. This really shouldn't be difficult for a reporter to grasp. That Time and so many other publications seem to find this concept alien (cf the fake "balance" injected into various Republican corruption stories) is at the heart of American journalism's malaise. Until the press realises that they are accountable to their readers more than their sources, they will continue to stumble along through scandals and apologies, all the while angering and losing readers.

[Eat the Document]

More Dickerson sucking up:

http://www.slate.com/id/2132350/

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1224.html

June 19, 1989

I.F. Stone, Iconoclast of Journalism
By PETER B. FLINT

I. F. Stone, the independent, radical pamphleteer of American journalism hailed by admirers for scholarship, wit and lucidity and denounced by critics for wrongheadedness and stubbornness, died of a heart attack yesterday in a Boston hospital. He was 81 years old and lived for many years in Washington.

Mr. Stone's career in eight publications, most of them left of center, spanned more than 65 years. Its capstone was his muckraking newsletter, I. F. Stone's Weekly (1953 through 1968) and, after his pace was slowed by a heart attack, I. F. Stone's Bi-Weekly (1969 through 1971). They were essentially one-man, four-page pamphlets that charged official Washington, particularly the Pentagon, with misleading the press and the people.

Admirers of his informed skepticism praised him for courage and insights. Detractors acknowledged his integrity but accused him of obsessive opposition to the use of power, particularly military power. Everyone agreed that he annoyed some people all the time and all people one time or another.

Enjoying the Maverick's Role

The short, owlish maverick with dimpled cheeks and major handicaps in hearing and vision, was a tough-minded but pacifist gadfly, a tireless examiner of public records, a hectoring critic of public officials, a persistent attacker of Government distortions and evasions and a pugnacious advocate of civil liberties, peace and truth. He enjoyed being barred from background press briefings, which he denounced as ''usually brainwashings.''

He battled for many years to get a black admitted to the National Press Club. He also differed with many liberals in insisting on constitutional protections for Communists, declaring that ''once you put ifs and buts in the Bill of Rights, nobody's civil liberties will be secure.'' At the same time, he hailed the American tradition of a free press, declaring:

''There are very few countries in which you can spit in the eye of the Government and get away with it. It's not possible in Moscow.''

The primary grist for his profitable, 19-year newsletter was documents rather than people. He read at least 10 newspapers a day and ferreted out contradictions and inconsistencies in the voluminous records of official Washington, using them to oppose McCarthyism, racism, the nuclear arms race, American military involvement in Vietnam and other issues he regarded as stains on democracy.

Sometimes It Was Exclusive

Mr. Stone's tenacity produced some important exclusive reports. One was his disclosure in 1957 that the Atomic Energy Commission's first underground atomic test was detected not only 200 miles away, as the Government said, but 2,600 miles away. The Government's assertion suggested that a test ban would allow the Soviet Union to cheat without fear of discovery. Mr. Stone confirmed the lie by checking with a seismologist at the Coast and Geodetic Survey....