USA Today's media columnist Peter Johnson takes a look how news media are reconsidering how much they rely on anonymous sources in their reporting. Johnson's Media Mix column also notes that men are cited as sources twice as often in stories as are women, according to a new study by the Project Excellence in Journalism.
What does the president of CNN have to say about the network's (over) coverage of the runaway bride? (NPR's On the Media; thanks to Romenesko for the link.)
This is an issue we've talked about previously here - Does the kidnapping (or death) of attractive, wealthy or middle class, white women or girls matter more to the media than the kidnapping, death, etc. of non-whites? Sure looks that way. Romenesko has links to a number of stories looking at how cable news channels went nuts over the "runaway bride" story, and mostly ignored the story of missing (then murdered) bride Stacy-Ann Snappleton. (Don't remember the Snappleton story? A year ago this bride to be disappeared in New York while preparing for her wedding. The story got virtually no national coverage.)
Documentary filmmaker Errol Morris, director of The Thin Blue Line and The Fog of War, talks in an audio essay about how he believes in truth and pursuit of truth. The issue of what is truth, and what forms truth can take, is a central element in my media ethics class, and I think that Morris does a good job of presenting a filmmaker's notion of the importance and existence of truth.
Those of you who are regular readers know that I'm a big fan of the Washington Post and that I have little patience with the constant charges of the mainstream media having a strong liberal or conservative bias. Sunday's Post provides some great examples that justify my opinion on both of those matters. I read three articles off the front page of the Post yesterday which I think draw a striking picture of what is good about the paper. The first of these was an extended article about the new memoir by Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. The article deals in depth with Byrd's involvement with the Klan in the 1940s and how his book is inconsistent with what the records of the 40s show. The second article deals with how Maryland's new Republican governor has fired more than 200 people in the Maryland bureaucracy for being politically disloyal to him. Finally, there was an excellent analysis of possible candidates for the anticipated opening on the U.S. Supreme Court. You'll notice that with this front page, there is a story that holds a legendary Democratic senator accountable for his actions 60 years ago, an article that holds a new governor accountable for his actions over the last year, and an article that looks at what the president's actions will likely be during the coming year.
A recent survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center showed that 40 percent of Americans consider talk show host and commentator Bill O'Reilly a journalist, while only 30 percent said they consider Watergate reporter Bob Woodward a journalist. Now, clearly this is a matter of name recognition - more people today know who O'Reilly is than Woodward. But even given that, the survey clearly shows that people consider talk show hosts like O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to be journalists. And why do they think so? Because they have shows on news radio and on cable news channels. (By the way, it isn't just a conservative thing... only 20 percent considered columnist and author George Will a journalist). (Los Angeles Times)
Deep Throat - Day 2
The news about the news today continues to be dominated by Tuesday's revelation that legendary Watergate source Deep Throat was actually W. Mark Felt, former #2 at the FBI. Here's a round up of items from blogs and news sites on the story.
- UPDATE - Bob Woodward Talks - How Mark Felt Became 'Deep Throat'
Let's face it, this is the one story we've all wanted to read since 1974. The story of Deep Throat by the reporter who knew him. I've just had the time to read this story over my morning coffee, and it is spellbinding. In addition to telling the story of Deep Throat, it is also the story of how a young Navy lieutenant went looking for a job after he finished his service obligation. It tells how Woodward caught the journalism bug and became the best known reporter of his generation. I was really sorry when the article ended, and I hope to see a book out from Woodward on being a reporter.
BTW, were Woodward to write about the current stop loss programs in the Army, it would be something he knows about personally. He had to stay in the Navy an extra year back in 1970 because his four-year obligation was involuntarily changed to five to meet staffing needs during the Vietnam War. It's also interesting that Woodward worked as a volunteer for the Republican congressman from his home district in Illinois while he was assigned to the Pentagon.
Journalism students - if you want to understand your professors, you need to understand the Watergate story. This is why many of us of my generation got into journalism in the first place and still retain some idealism about what journalism is supposed to be.- Video Interview with Woodward
- WP's Deep Throat Blog
- Deep Throat Speaks - Editorial from the Washington Post
The WP talks about keeping journalism's biggest secret for more than 30 years. - WP's Deep Throat Page
- Introducing Deep Throat - Editorial from the NY Times
The Times looks at who it turned out to be and the importance of keeping promises. - NYT Overview on Deep Throat Story
Lead story on Deep Throat from the Times. Includes an audio slide show and a range of related stories. - Deep Throat Revealed Cartoons from Cagle
Daryl Cagle's wonderful editorial cartoon omnibus page has a great collection of Deep Throat cartoons. - NPR Audio Coverage of Deep Throat
Includes commentary from former Nixon enemy Daniel Schorr and analysis of the role of anonymous sources. - Romenesko - All Deep Throat - All The Time
On Wednesday, it seemed as though all items dealt with Deep Throat. Maybe not. But there were items from Nora Ephron (journalist, writer, director, Carl Bertstein's ex-wife), the WP's David Von Drehle, and on the issue of anonymice.
Wednesday - June 1, 2005
Journalism's Great Secret Revealed - Washington Post Confirms Identity of "Deep Throat"
Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein confirmed Tuesday that W. Mark Felt, the former #2 person at the FBI, was "Deep Throat." Deep Throat was the secret source who provided guidance and background to the two reporters as they worked the Watergate story in the early 1970s. The reporters, along with editor Ben Bradlee, had promised not to give up Deep Throat's name until he died, but Vanity Fair magazine and Felt's family had identified the 91-year-old retiree as the source. Woodward will have story in Thursday's Post discussing his relationship with Felt.
Deep Throat was in many ways one of the most important sources in recent journalistic history, for a variety of reasons. First of all, he gave the Washington Post confidence to move forward with their story when everyone was full of criticism for the paper. As Bradlee told the Post, "The number-two guy at the FBI, that was a pretty good source." But Woodward and Bernstein's success using sources on deep background has also led to the whole culture of using anonymous sources in Washington. At times, of course, anonymous sources are a necessary part of journalism. But these days, routine briefings are held on background so that the sources won't be identified. These sources, sometimes referred to as "anonymice," remove accountability from sources and put journalists in a dangerous position. And dishonest journalists can use unnnamed sources as a way of fabricating stories. So the legacy of Deep Throat is journalism at its best and at it's worst. That is not Deep Throat's fault, though. It is up to journalists and their editors to know when anonymous sources are worth using, and when they are not.
- WP Deep Throat Identity Page
- WP Watergate Chronology
- Sites and Sounds of Watergate
- WP 30th Anniversary of Watergate Coverage
- Obsolete Theories on Deep Throat's Identity
- He Wasn't Fred Felding
Students at University of Illinois came to the conclusion that Deep Throat was Fred Felding following a four-year investigation.) - He Wasn't Fred LaRue
- He Wasn't Henry Kissinger
That was John Ehrlichman's theory. - And He Wasn't Al Haig, David Gergen, or Pat Buchanan
But this article from American Journalism Review did list Felt as a likely suspect.
- He Wasn't Fred Felding
Friday - July 8, 2005
Miller / Cooper History and Update
I may be on vacation from my blog, but the news doesn't stop just because it's summer. The big story that has brought me back is the Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal from Judy Miller and Matt Cooper on their contempt case for refusing to testify about the identity of their confidential sources. As long-time readers of this blog know, I consider this to be one of the most important news business stories of the last year, far more critical than Bill O'Reily's adventures in decency, more important than faked memos, more important even than John Stewart slapping around CNN.
So here's the story from the beginning.
On July 14, 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak disclosed the name of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. Her husband is former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who investigated and discredited intelligence claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from a West African nation. (He also wrote a follow-up column on October 1, 2003.) Critics charge that someone in the Bush administration leaked the name to Novak in order to discredit Wilson.
In August of 2004, Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper was held in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions about who leaked the name of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. A few days later, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was subpoenaed by the grand jury investigating the leak. It should be noted at this point that neither Miller nor Cooper had outed Plame. That honor/shame belonged to Novak alone.
In late August, Matt Cooper testified about his conversations with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby after the vice president's chief of staff released Cooper from his promise of confidentiality.
In October, the NYT reporter Judith Miller was found in contempt of court and ordered to jail for refusing to testify. She remained free while her case was on appeal.
Things stayed relatively calm until February of 2005 when a federal appeals court upheld the lower court orders that Miller and Cooper must testify or go to jail. In April, their sentences were stayed until the Supreme Court could rule in their case. In May, lawyers for the two journalists filed their appeals with the United States Supreme Court. Then, in June, the court finally met to decide whether to hear the appeal.
Finally, on Wednesday, July 6, Judith Miller was ordered to report to jail for her refusal to testify before the grand jury. Time magazine's Matt Cooper was spared going to jail when his employer turned over his notes and e-mails to the courts, and his sources released him from his promises of confidentiality. Surprisingly to me, a number of people seem to be pleased to see journalists either going to jail or being forced to testify; though many are horrified.
The Miller / Cooper case raises a number of questions and issues:
- From the start, there have been concerns about how the subpoenas would affect journalists and the news business. Though some, including the Chicago Tribune's Don Wycliff, thought that Miller and Cooper ought to have testified all along.
- The subpoenas against Miller and Cooper have not been isolated incidents. In September, the same federal prosecutor who went after reporters in the Plame case went after reporters' notes to discover whether government officials had leaked information to reporters about an investigation about an Islamic charity. And Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus testified in the Plame case after he was released by his source. Rhode Island television reporter Jim Taricani was sentenced to six months of home confinement for refusing to reveal who leaked a copy of an FBI surveillance tape to him. Note again that Taricani had violated no law in reporting; he was only in trouble for refusing to testify
- Why is Miller in jail when Novak is the one who published the leak that was potentially illegal?
- Who were Matt Cooper's and Judith Miller's sources? While at this writing we don't know who Miller's sources were, we do know that Cooper spoke with Scooter Libby. And it appears very likely that Bush's deputy chief of staff Karl Rove was also one.
- If these cases had been in state court, the reporters might have been protected by shield laws that keep reporters from having to testify in many situations. But as of now there is no federal shield law, though a variety of organizations have called for one.
- Ethical Questions Dept. -- What Constitutes Visual Plagiarism?
A photographer at the Richmond Times-Dispatch has been fired for committing "visual plagiarism." The photographer took a new photo for the paper that was a virtual copy of one that appeared in Style Weekly magazine. The controversy surrounding the photo off a stack of candy raised questions about the article that accompanied the photo, and the paper has since undertaken a review of some of its editorial processes.
Don Wycliff's column for this week raises a couple of fascinating issues about news reports containing racial or ethnic identification. For example, at what point does a black person become African-American? One is a description of skin color, the other is a description of national origin. They may not correspond with each other. As an example, I went to a doctor a year or so ago who I suspect would be identified as white, who was also African-American (i.e. She was born and raised in Africa then moved to the United States. How would she self-identify? I have no idea.)
- When Is It OK for a Reporter to Tape Record a Conversation?
Last week, the Miami Herald fired columnist Jim DeFede for secretly taping a telephone conversation with a county commissioner Arthur Teele shortly before the commissioner committed suicide in the newspaper's lobby. According to Editor & Publisher, it is against the law in Florida to tape a phone conversation unless both parties consent to it. Most states have laws that allow taping as long as one of the people involved know that the taping is taking place. In a column from Wednesday's Herald, Robert Steinback (along with a co-credit for DeFede) argues that while DeFede did break the law, his behavior was not particularly ethically questionable, especially given that he voluntarily disclosed the taping to management. Journalism professor Philip Meyer, writing in USA Today, argues that journalism is weaker when reporters will not make bold moves like taping important conversations, with or without the interviewee's consent.
In a second, related controversy, the Herald has also been criticized for running a photo of Teele's body on the front page.
Here are several other stories on these troubling ethical issues:- Politician Kills Self in Miami Herald Lobby (Miami Herald)
- Herald Executives Explain Termination of Columnist (Miami Herald)
- Richard Prince: Miami Suicide Raises Coverage Issues
Prince's commentary is interesting in that it deals more with the issues of covering the suicide of a prominent individual rather than the ethics of recording a phone call. (Maynard Institute) - Suicide's Aftermath Rocks Miami (Washington Post)
- Jon Carroll: What DeFede Did and Why It Was the Right Thing to Do (San Francisco Chronicle)
During my lecture this morning I noted that I had been involved slightly as a commentator on the controversy over a recent cover of Harper's magazine. Here's the story:
Harper's Misuses Marine's Photograph
Putting together a magazine cover using stock photos is a fairly normal occurrence. You've got a good story, and so you order up a photo from a photo agency to go with it. That's what Harper's magazine did with a photo of a group of Marine recruits. The only problem is that the story was about Marines deserting - going AWOL. And none of the Marines in the photo had deserted. They are all serving their country honorably. The photo was also manipulated to make one of the Marines look transparent, which was in violation of the photo agency's rules. Reporter Jake Stump at the Charleston Daily Mail wrote a story about the cover, and used me as a source in it.
Michelle Malkin Picks Up The Story
A month or so later, I was surprised to get an E-mail from a librarian friend who mentioned I was quoted by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin in her column blasting media coverage of the war in Iraq. Which was interesting given that I had not been contacted by Malkin.
My Response to Malkin
While Malkin did quote me accurately about my thoughts on Harper's, she used my quote as evidence of a point I'm not sure I would agree with. You can read my response to Malkin's column in an op/ed piece that ran in the Charleston Daily Mail where I write occasionally about media issues.
FishbowlDC on the Harper's / Malkin Story
Finally, the entire story got a brief mention in the media news blog FishbowlDC.
- Spinning Sex Dept. - What's the Report Really Say?
Last week the National Center for Health Statistics released a report with the alluring title "Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15 - 44 years of age, United States, 2002." The good folks at Fishbowl DC decided to take a look at how three different papers reported on the story: the Washington Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. No way to deny that each paper had its own take on the story. Let's take a look at how a few other news outlets handled the story:
Last week I read a provocative column at Poynter Institute about how the press covers evangelical Christians. Author Terry Mattingly, senior fellow for the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities argues that both the press and evangelicals are poorly served when the first person to be quoted about religious issues is controversial preacher Pat Robertson. In essence, his argument was that the press gives Robertson lots of ink because he makes evangelicals look bad.
Unfortunately after I read the piece, I promptly lost my link. A quick Google provided no help. So I went to a listserv I belong to for journalism educators to ask for help. Along with getting the link back to the article, I also got some interesting feedback about the article which I'm reprinting (with permission) here.
Bill Kovarik of Radford notes:
[Mattingly] has a point. Remember the Tinky Winky thing? A "bright" by a Roanoke Va AP reporter about a serious article in a Falwell-sponsored magazine (an article few of us would agree with, but serious, nevertheless) turns into Jerry trying to "out" Tinky Winky. Totally absurd.
So -- why are journalists so keen to lampoon the fools on the margins? What are they missing by doing so? Mattingly has some suggestions in the religious area. I could think of others in the policy area.
Maybe there's just not enough to laugh about in the average newsroom.
No, wait. Couldn't be that.
John Carvalho at Auburn gives a plausible explanation why reporters like to go to Robertson when they want a comment from the Christian right:
What makes Robertson so attractive to the news media is that he provides lively, though often out there comments. In essence, he does the media's work for them -- frees them of the obligation to do the spade-work to dig and find what is really going on. This is a problem throughout the media -- choosing sources based on their quotability. It is certainly appropriate for journalists to step back and evaluate their sources' credibility in all areas.
- Covering Complicated Conflicts - Can the Press Handle Evolution v. Intelligent Design?
Journalists oftentimes have trouble covering complex scientific issues because the model of balanced reporting doesn't always fit when it comes to talking about scientific issues. For example, how do you cover an issue where there is clearly a right and a wrong answer? Or how do you handle an issue where there is much more evidence on one side than on the other. Does presenting them as equal serve your audience?
This becomes especially problematic when the science is politically charged, with issues such as global warming, stem cell research, and the impact of pollution.
Then there's the whole issue of reporters having slept through science class, and so they don't really understand the issues being raised and claimed.
So it's not surprising that journalists have trouble covering the issue of teaching evolution in the science class. How does a journalist deal with the charge that evolution is "just a theory" when the reporter doesn't have a clear idea of what constitutes a scientific theory. Or how does a journalist deal with charges that science is a religion? (Especially if the reporter slept through philosophy class.)
The linked article here is the cover story from a recent issue of Columbia Journalism Review on why journalists have trouble covering the debate over the teaching of evolution and intelligent design. To go with this, I give you as examples several stories that have run recently in the mainstream press on the issue.
Just to be clear, I'm treating evolution as an issue in the realm of science (with all of the rules that go with it); and intelligent design/creationism as a topic in religion/philosophy (with all of the different rules that go with it). If you were to ask me, the huge problem is that journalists can't distinguish between the two perfectly legitimate different fields.
Link Me
Journalists and the People Who Love Them
Jackie and Jenny Spinner are twins who had never been completely separated for an extended period of time until Jackie went to Iraq to cover the war for the Washington Post. In their book Tell Them I Didn't Cry, they talk about Jackie's experience in Iraq and Jenny's experience as an English professor back home. This is a very personal story of twin's who had to deal with all that war means to a relationship, and who are both talented writers. (For example, Jackie survived an attempted kidnapping which her sister overheard part of through a cell phone call.) The main link here is to Brian Lamb's interview with the Spinners on this week's edition of C-SPAN's Q&A, the show that replaced the long-running Booknotes. While there is a transcript on the site, please take the time to view the program as streaming video. (I watched it on my kitchen television Sunday night while baking banana bread.) For an audio interview, along with links to stories that the Spinners have contributed to NPR, go the Fresh Air archive.- Stories by the Spinners
- Jackie Discusses Her Time In Iraq For the WP
"When I called Jenny later, my voice shook. "These guys tried to kidnap me!" I exclaimed. I had already talked to my editor back in Washington, had heard myself begging: "Please, do not make me come home. I want to stay. Please, do not call me home." " - Jenny Discusses Jackie's Decision To Go To Iraq
"When your twin goes off to war, she never really returns. And you are the one left desperate, grasping for an arm, a leg, anything familiar to hold onto, to push her back into the womb you once shared." (WP) - Jackie Chats Online About the Jill Carroll Kidnapping (WP)
- Cooking in the Red Zone
OK, now we're getting personal. Jackie discusses cooking in dangerous area outside the highly secure "Green Zone." (WP Food Section) - In One Night, Iraqi Turns From Friend to Foe
2005 article by Jackie on Iraq from the Post. - Video from Spinner on Iraqi Elections
MSNBC story by Jackie from January 2005
- Jackie Discusses Her Time In Iraq For the WP
Covering War In Iraq Is A Dangerous Business
As you no doubt know by now, ABC News anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were seriously injured in a roadside bombing by an improvised explosive device in Iraq on Sunday. Although they are among the most high profile journalists to be injured, killed or kidnapped in Iraq, they are only the latest in a long line of journalists to pay a high price for doing their job in covering the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
Garrett Graff has thoughtful entry at FishbowlDC on whether this attack will finally make the American public realize what incredible sacrifices our soldiers and press are making in Iraq. As he notes (in referencing a recent story from the NYT):
Bob Woodruff was in Baghdad for ABC reporting the good news that the Bush administration complains is ignored by the news media, and he ended up as a glaring illustration of the bad news.
Woodruff and Vogt are just two of the journalists who have been injured or killed covering the war in Iraq and the war on terror. For example, Jill Carroll, reporting for the Christian Science Monitor, was kidnapped last week. And as story on NPR points out, more journalists have died in the war in Iraq since 2003, than died during the entire Vietnam War.
Throughout this week we're going to be looking at the sacrifices journalists have been making to cover the war, along with other dangerous stories around the world.
High schools have always had an urge to control what students publish in yearbooks and student newspapers, and since the Hazelwood decision, teachers and principles have had pretty much a blank check to censor whatever they want. But now students can bypass traditional means of publishing and simply post their ideas to the Internet through sites such as Xanga, MySpace, and LiveJournal. Schools are still trying to find a way to get students to stop posting materials administrators find offensive. How so last century of them! (Seriously, students may well be posting unwise material, but I don't see how anyone is going to stop them.) (Washington Post)
Journalists in Iraq Face Kidnapping & Murder
Along with the risk of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the general emotional and physical toll that covering news in a war zone takes, journalists in Iraq face a daily threat of being kidnapped if they try to go outside of the heavily fortified Green Zone. This week, two Iraqi journalists - Marwan Ghazal and Reem Zaeed of Samaria TV - were kidnapped while covering a political meeting. (The main link for this entry is to a Washington Post chat on the risks journalists are facing in Iraq.)
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), there were 14 journalists kidnapped in Iraq in 2005, and as of today (February 3, 2005) there have been a total of 39 journalists kidnapped since the war began.
Among American journalists, the most recent kidnapping involves Christian Science Monitor freelance reporter Jill Carroll, who was taken on January 7th, along with Allan Enwiyah, her interpreter. While Carroll is being held hostage, Enwiyah was murdered and left in the street. The CPJ has a news and information page about Carroll's status, as does the Monitor. Support for Carroll is not limited to Western papers; according the Monitor, The Jordan TImes has run two editorials calling for the kidnappers to release Carroll, who has written for the JT in the past.
Arab satellite news service al-Jazeera ran a video of Carroll on Monday that showed her crying, the accompanying report said that her abductors were calling on the U.S. and Iraqi governments to release all female prisoners. MarketWatch media columnist Jon Friedman raises the question as to whether the media ought to stop airing video released by terrorists. He writes:
"Maybe it's time we refused to air a tape and, in effect, quit pandering (if unwittingly) to the terrorists. Perhaps Americans living and working in danger zones around the world would be better off from now on. "
I'm not sure I buy his argument, but it is provocative.
NPR's On The Media ran several stories on the challenges of reporting on the Middle East last week. They include an interview with Susanne Fischer, the Iraq Country Director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting; an interview with Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi, who wrote a widely circulated e-mail back in 2004 the dangers and frustrations of trying to cover the war in Iraq; and a story about the launch of Al-Jazeera International, an English-language edition of the largest Arab satellite news network.