3 ms·

This is certainly how things ought to work, but it's far from clear that it does. A reporter on an international affairs beat can't possibly dismiss sources as

This is certainly how things ought to work, but it's far from clear that it does. A reporter on an international affairs beat can't possibly dismiss sources as broad as the State Department or CIA - which makes it very possible to rotate through mouthpieces as they're proven unreliable. (And that's usually when clear dishonesty is found, not just plausibly-mistaken claims.) And anonymity is usually protected even when a source is found to having knowingly mislead journalists, which means a dishonest source is only burned for a single reporter or outlet and can go seek out a new audience. Multiply the number of mid-level employees at a major government body by the number of reputable news orgs and this starts to look completely sustainable. It's something (reputable) news accountability groups have been upset about for years, but no one seems to have solved it. Conventional wisdom appears to be that publications are scared they'll lose source access completely if they start unmasking dishonest USG sources. https://fair.org/home/should-media-expose-sources-who-lied-to-them/ https://fair.org/home/should-media-expose-sources-who-lied-t...

freeflight 8y ago
> A reporter on an international affairs beat can't possibly dismiss sources as broad as the State Department or CIA It's actually worse, the power dynamics are completely lopsided: He/she can't disgruntle his governmental sources or else there's the very real possibility of being cut out of the loop/any access at all in the future. Which isn't a great prospect for any journalist because you can't get any "scoops" when your competitors have privileged access to information.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  Yes, that's a very good point. In-depth interviews, early story tip-offs, and 'approved' leaks with accurate content aren't just a way to distribute information and build connections with reporters, they're a way to cultivate dependence. If 95% of unverified content is accurate, a reporter who can't get pithy 'official' quotes or advance warning on stories will consistently produce worse output than those who can. It seems like a few particularly famous publications can push back because they're too big to shut out, though their individual reporters often still fold. (e.g. the NYT on Iraqi WMDs.) And there's a bit of room for dedicated 'dissenting' sources like The Intercept and CounterSpin, because they can curate a reputation as leak recipients and then fill out the rest of their schedule with media analysis instead of breaking news. But overall, first-line sources seem to be very effectively trapped by this pattern.
- haroldp 8y ago
  > Which isn't a great prospect for any journalist because you can't get any "scoops" when your competitors have privileged access to information. This is an important part of Herman/Chomsky's "Propaganda Model" of media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

freeflight 8y ago

> A reporter on an international affairs beat can't possibly dismiss sources as broad as the State Department or CIA It's actually worse, the power dynamics are completely lopsided: He/she can't disgruntle his governmental sources or else there's the very real possibility of being cut out of the loop/any access at all in the future. Which isn't a great prospect for any journalist because you can't get any "scoops" when your competitors have privileged access to information.

Bartweiss 8y ago
Yes, that's a very good point. In-depth interviews, early story tip-offs, and 'approved' leaks with accurate content aren't just a way to distribute information and build connections with reporters, they're a way to cultivate dependence. If 95% of unverified content is accurate, a reporter who can't get pithy 'official' quotes or advance warning on stories will consistently produce worse output than those who can. It seems like a few particularly famous publications can push back because they're too big to shut out, though their individual reporters often still fold. (e.g. the NYT on Iraqi WMDs.) And there's a bit of room for dedicated 'dissenting' sources like The Intercept and CounterSpin, because they can curate a reputation as leak recipients and then fill out the rest of their schedule with media analysis instead of breaking news. But overall, first-line sources seem to be very effectively trapped by this pattern.
haroldp 8y ago
> Which isn't a great prospect for any journalist because you can't get any "scoops" when your competitors have privileged access to information. This is an important part of Herman/Chomsky's "Propaganda Model" of media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model