I ran across a guest commentary in the Oregon Daily Emerald from May 24, in which the writer said that stories like Newsweek's Quran flushing report, based on actual allegations, but taking authority from the words of a respected anonymous source who turned out to be completely wrong, are examples of why the government should have the ability to censor media during wartime. The article is pretty simple and straightforward, but so amazingly off-base in its assumptions and its blind trust in the Bush administration (and who the hell signals out Scott McClellan for praise? The guy still gets battered by Helen Thomas, who seems to be decomposing during each press conference).
An excerpt:
"The Newsweek staff made a profound error in judgment by publishing an unsubstantiated rumor by an "anonymous" source. In my opinion, errors like this make a strong argument for press restrictions during times of war. When issues of national security are at stake, irresponsible news reporting such as this has serious consequences."
Can we talk about irresponsible government decision-making in a democracy, please?
And while we're at it, anyone have opinions on anonymous sources? I say that the rule of thumb, in general (making exceptions for extraordinary circumstances or times when the anonymity is seen to carry no risk), should be that anonymous sources should not be used just to bash individuals or provide quotes without any new information; additionally, they should not provide sensationalist stories without on-the-record interviews with other individuals that help support the anonymous source (this is important especially during this time when the media is under attack for not revealing sources in relation to the Valerie Plame CIA case). In general, the main role of anonymous sources should be to bolster stories in ways that only insiders could, at times when insiders are not willing or unable to go on the record (how else would people in the government or military ever leak information? Think of what anonymous sources have done positively in the past: Watergate, Pentagon Papers, etc).
An excerpt:
"The Newsweek staff made a profound error in judgment by publishing an unsubstantiated rumor by an "anonymous" source. In my opinion, errors like this make a strong argument for press restrictions during times of war. When issues of national security are at stake, irresponsible news reporting such as this has serious consequences."
Can we talk about irresponsible government decision-making in a democracy, please?
And while we're at it, anyone have opinions on anonymous sources? I say that the rule of thumb, in general (making exceptions for extraordinary circumstances or times when the anonymity is seen to carry no risk), should be that anonymous sources should not be used just to bash individuals or provide quotes without any new information; additionally, they should not provide sensationalist stories without on-the-record interviews with other individuals that help support the anonymous source (this is important especially during this time when the media is under attack for not revealing sources in relation to the Valerie Plame CIA case). In general, the main role of anonymous sources should be to bolster stories in ways that only insiders could, at times when insiders are not willing or unable to go on the record (how else would people in the government or military ever leak information? Think of what anonymous sources have done positively in the past: Watergate, Pentagon Papers, etc).
posted by The Oracles @ 12:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home