Public Eye
November 18, 2005 12:40 PM

Sore Throat

What a tangled web we weave when upon anonymous sources we lean. Okay, so I’m not Sir Walter Scott (or Shakespeare as originally written) but that line about deception does seem to fit the continuing soap opera that is the Plame leak investigation. We thought Judith Miller’s exit from The New York Times signaled the end of the media’s part in the play. Turns out we’ve only reached intermission.

Today Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, bravely took to the paper’s Web site to take questions from the public about this week’s revelation that Bob Woodward had been told about Valerie Plame by an unnamed source and had remained silent (even to Downie) about it until that source informed the prosecutor of it. The jolt kicked off this act with a bang. Woodward apologized to Downie and the paper, Post employees vented about it in internal conversations and plenty of questions were raised by media watchers.

PE applauds Downie for doing a Post chat and engaging in a dialogue with readers (how could we not?) but what was instructive about it was not what Downie had to say but rather the questions asked. One reader from France asked:
“One cannot help but think that Bob Woodward in this instance either deliberately held back this information for his own purpose -- he does after all need to have access to the president and his cabinet to complete research on his new book.”
Another from Chicago wondered in part:
“Do you think Woodward was covering up for the vice president?”
Still another from Maryland asked:
“My impression is that reporters are becoming increasingly ‘players’ rather than observers. Reporters identify more with the elites they follow around and go to dinner with, than the rabble they write for. Woodward's reporting, for example, looks more and more like insiders' stories. Where can we outsiders turn for real investigative reporting?”
There were many more questions, some more positive in tone toward Woodward than others, but everyone in the media ought to be concerned with how they are being perceived. Woodward’s “Deep Throat” remains the shining example of how investigative reporting should be done and how important anonymous sources can be. But the increasing reliance on them in reports on everything from the most important to the most mundane diminishes the practice.

The result is suspicion among readers, not to mention an open invitation to question reporters’ motives. Lots of news organizations have paid at least lip service to the problems of anonymous sources and have introduced complex explanations that purport to give consumers more of an idea where blind quotes are coming from. But it’s pretty clear that approach isn’t working.

This morning on Don Imus’ show, Post media writer Howard Kurtz described the controversy being inflicted on news organizations from Time magazine to The New York Times, and now the Post as a “virus” spreading from one to the next. He also said he’s taken to calling Woodward’s latest secret source as “Shallow Throat.” I’d take it a step further and say it’s the media’s addiction to unnamed sources that is the virus and it’s giving the entire profession a “Sore Throat.” And if it goes untreated, it could turn into something much more serious to our health.
Tags:
Woodward ,
Sore Throat
Topics:
Media Issues
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment
by Stephen Neitzke November 19, 2005 9:26 PM EST
There should be no such thing as anonymous sources when the publication of specific information is clearly criminal. IMO, Bob Woodward is now every bit the criminal that Robert Novak is. Felony obstruction of justice, Woodward's role, should not be pooh-poohed away because of the reporter's high station in life. But inter-agency and inter-branch checks and balances have been collapsed into collusions of protection for all the criminals who have sufficiently high standing among the class-race-gender elite. Well -- until awkward majorities of citizens are riled and some little wrist-slapping must be done. V.Ververs wrote: "... Lots of news organizations have paid at least lip service to the problems of anonymous sources and have introduced complex explanations that purport to give consumers more of an idea where blind quotes are coming from. ..." Anyone working in media issues, who still sees we the sovereign people as "consumers", instead of as citizens, is suffering a dangerous disconnect. The systemic problems leading to our present constitutional crisis -- the worst constitutional crisis of our national history -- have been shown by Bush-Cheney and their parasitic media mouthpieces to be gaping wounds in our political dynamic. The wounds will be cauterized by citizens, not consumers. Stand by for Reform Era II and a never-before-seen, national constitutional renewal. We're cutting through the BS and gathering. Live free or die.
Reply to this comment
by ronmwanga November 19, 2005 3:34 PM EST
Lukasiak has a point as does VV: While I applaud the transparency of chatting -- even as Walter Pincus was facing some hot water -- Brownie, who, BTW, runs the paper with the most aggressive coverage of this administration -- wasn't as candid as I would have hoped. I hope he does this again, possibly on Kurtz's Reliable Sources. It's been a big week for Washpo
Reply to this comment
by wintermute1-2009 November 18, 2005 7:37 PM EST
Aye, and this be a fav'rit of me own: from: To a Louse, on seeing one on a Lady's Bonnet at Church by Robert Burns "O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"
Reply to this comment
by lukasiak-2009 November 18, 2005 6:55 PM EST
Vaughn Ververs seems to be confusing "what questions Downie was asked" with "what questions Downie chose to answer." One thing stands out about Downie's chat --- he didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. In other words, Downie assiduously avoided any substantive questions submitted to him (I sent three -- and got none answered. And when I submit questions to the Posts online chats, my questions are used most of the time, unless a similar question is used.) There is something very fishy about Woodward's explanations --- for instance, why did Woodward think that by keeping his mouth shut, he could avoid having to talk to the prosecutor? After all, his source was supposed to be co-operating with the investigation, and Pinkus was answering questions as well....
Reply to this comment
by v_ververs November 18, 2005 5:37 PM EST
Carolynjkd How right you are, it has been corrected. My Shakespeare professor would be ashamed. Thank's for keeping me honest.
Reply to this comment
by carolynjkd November 18, 2005 5:20 PM EST
Not Shakespere? Nor are you sir Walter Scott, who actually wrote the lines about a tangled web.
Reply to this comment

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye