In Defense of Jailing Reporters
In response to my post this morning in defense of jailing reporters who refuse to name their sources in court, the liberal weenie makes some excellent arguments in the comment section in favor of shielding reporters from incarceration. In a nutshell he has two arguments: 1) we protect all sorts of people from being forced to reveal information about others (clergy, therapists, etc); and 2) forcing reporters to name their sources undermines the public good by making whistleblowers who want to remain anonymous too afraid to speak to reporters. I’m going to set aside the first point for now, so I can jump straight to some good old-fashion reporter-bashing.
It’s unethical for reporters to quote anonymous sources. There, I said it. Deal with it. For starters, there is no way for the reader to verify that the story is true. Did an unnamed “senior Bush Administration official” really say that Bush has started drinking again? How do we know that the reporter didn’t make it up? (a real problem given the rash of fake journalism at the New York Times and USA Today these days). Now, reporters will say “our editors verify the information”, but that’s just another way of saying “you will just have to take our word for it that we’re not lying”. But, even if an unnamed senior Bush Administration official really did say that Bush has started drinking again, how can readers gage the credibility of the source? How senior is senior? Was it the Vice-President? A member of Bush’s Cabinet? Or some underling? Does the source have a history of lying? Does he have an axe to grind with the President? There’s no way for readers (or for that matter other reporters) to determine whether or not the accusation should be believed.
If we can’t make journalists reveal their sources in a court of law then there really is no way for the public to ever know if they’re being lied to or not. The bottom line: reporters who break the law should go to jail, just like everyone else who breaks the law.
By the way, as far as I know no senior Bush Administration official has said that Bush has started drinking again. I made it up. Just an unnecessary potshot at the President to prove that bloggers really can literally say anything.
It’s unethical for reporters to quote anonymous sources. There, I said it. Deal with it. For starters, there is no way for the reader to verify that the story is true. Did an unnamed “senior Bush Administration official” really say that Bush has started drinking again? How do we know that the reporter didn’t make it up? (a real problem given the rash of fake journalism at the New York Times and USA Today these days). Now, reporters will say “our editors verify the information”, but that’s just another way of saying “you will just have to take our word for it that we’re not lying”. But, even if an unnamed senior Bush Administration official really did say that Bush has started drinking again, how can readers gage the credibility of the source? How senior is senior? Was it the Vice-President? A member of Bush’s Cabinet? Or some underling? Does the source have a history of lying? Does he have an axe to grind with the President? There’s no way for readers (or for that matter other reporters) to determine whether or not the accusation should be believed.
If we can’t make journalists reveal their sources in a court of law then there really is no way for the public to ever know if they’re being lied to or not. The bottom line: reporters who break the law should go to jail, just like everyone else who breaks the law.
By the way, as far as I know no senior Bush Administration official has said that Bush has started drinking again. I made it up. Just an unnecessary potshot at the President to prove that bloggers really can literally say anything.
posted by Cicero @ 7/07/2005
< Home>