Sourcing

For all the hand-wringing about how the Trump administration is hostile to the press and endangering democracy, the press itself seems to have fallen into a kind of professional narcolepsy and letting go of standards that used to be iron clad.

Take this week’s jaw-dropping story about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offering to wear a wire when with the President to prepare  25th-amendment case to remove him from office. The New York Times sourced the story this way:

Several people described the episodes in interviews over the past several months, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments.
 
What’s stunning is that not only aren’t the sources named, they’re not even claiming to
be eyewitnesses to Rosenstein’s suggestion. They were either “briefed” (who by?) or they read FBI memos. If that’s true, why isn’t The Times either acquiring and quoting the memos or interviewing the people who briefed these “several people?” Why isn’t The Times either interviewing Andrew G. McCabe or making him explain why he won’t be interviewed? Why are we getting this third hand?
I smell a rat. This smells like a Trump disinformation campaign to give him a reason to fire Rosenstein.
Washington journalism runs on unnamed sources; I get that. But I don’t like it and I don’t think it has to be this way. These unnamed sources want this story out for one reason or another. Told that they can’t get their story into the paper without someone coming forward to vouch publicly for its veracity, someone would fold and take the risk of being fired. Anybody of a level to be a good source for this story knows that he or she would have no trouble getting an equally good Washington job after falling on his/her sword by sourcing this important story.
That Trump administration personnel are sneaking around this way comes as no surprise. That The Times is letting them get away with it does.

 

2 thoughts on “Sourcing

  1. Agreed. A piece in the Atlantic asked the obvious question – cui bono? And the obvious answer is Trump, seeking “cover” for firing Rosenstein. I thinks the Times should’ve waited until they had documents.

    Like

  2. The Times, using anonymous sources, as you describe, may now have precipitated a new Saturday nIght massacre, an entirely foreseeable crisis. It strikes me The Times is no longer edited with the precision and overarching intelligence that was its hallmark. Last week it ran a Kavanaugh story off-lede whose headline was clearly misogynistic and out of sync with the actual story, and the week before a headline implied that UN Ambassador Nikki Haley had blown $52,000 on curtains for her residence at taxpayer expense when the story clearly did not say that.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s