Monthly Archives: June 2010

Post Defends Anonymous Sourcing of Pushback Article Against Rolling Stone

Date: June 29, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Ethics, Off the record, Washington Post

The Washington Post defends the article that allowed anonymous allies of Gen. McChrystal to attack the integrity of Rolling Stone and its writer Michael Hastings.

“The sources would only allow us to use the material on condition of anonymity,” Post National Security editor Cameron Barr told Yahoo! News. “Given the significant impact of the Rolling Stone story, we felt the public’s interest in seeing what military officials had to say about how it was reported and fact-checked was greater than in keeping that information to ourselves because the officials wouldn’t come on the record,” Barr continued. “We independently contacted several sources for the story.”

…Barr explained that “the story went through changes throughout [the] day as we added reporting to it that made the piece more comprehensive,” adding that the Post will “often revise webfiles for the paper.” The A1 print story included some additional reporting, such as when McChrystal first learned the details of the Rolling Stone story. However, it still included no on-the-record sources making the charge that Hastings used off-the-record materials or details to back up the allegation.

Still sounds like a bad call by The Post.

‘Dirty Little Secret’

Date: June 29, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Ethics, Mainstream Media, Off the record

Former CNN Pentagon reporter Jamie McIntyre on the difference between Michael Hastings Rolling Stone report on Gen. McChrystal and the MSM beat reporter’s approach (from “On the Media”)

JAMIE McINTYRE: Well, the difference is the sort of one-off reporter doesn’t need to worry about whether he’s going to get future access or not, whereas the beat reporters, like when I was at CNN, I needed access; I needed to be able to get to the key people to find out what was going on when bombs were dropping or things were happening.

And the way you do that is you forego reporting all of the sort of off-color jokes or informal banter that goes on when you follow these guys around, focus on the big picture, and they begin to trust you. As a result, when you need to know what’s going on, you get access.

If you do what Michael Hastings does, they’re never going to talk to him again. Of course, he — he doesn’t care. The fallout from that though is that they may also not talk to a lot of other reporters, as well.

BOB GARFIELD: Not reporting the off-color jokes, the intemperate comments and so forth, you call that the dirty little secret of beat reporting.

JAMIE McINTYRE: You know, it implies this sort of overly cozy relationship. These military officials that we’re following around, they’re not our friends. We’re frenemies, we’re not friends. You know, one thing we’ve learned from this whole episode is that military officers cannot tell you what they’re really thinking without being in peril of losing their jobs.

So the dirty little secret is yeah, we sort of informally agree not to report a lot of things that we see and hear, some of it for legitimate security reasons, and some of it because it could just be embarrassing. And the tradeoff is we get a continued relationship with these people and we can get information.

And by the way, it is information that we can still hold them accountable for, it’s just that we sort of cover them.

Post Allows Anonymous McChrystal Aides to Impugn Rolling Stone

Date: June 27, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Anonymity, Off the record, Politico, Washington Post

This appears to me to be a flagrant misuse of anonymous sources.  Credit The Post for not trying to make a lame excuse as to why it allowed anonymous McChrystal aides to impugn the integrity of Michael Hastings, who wrote the notorious article that led to the general losing his command and probably his career.  But the fact that the Post allowed anonymous sources to attack Hastings and his editors is unconscionable:

[O]fficials close to McChrystal began trying to salvage his reputation by asserting that the author, Michael Hastings, quoted the general and his staff in conversations that he was allowed to witness but not report.

…A senior military official insisted that "many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [Hastings] a sense" of how the team operated. The command’s own review of events, said the official, who was unwilling to speak on the record, found "no evidence to suggest" that any of the "salacious political quotes" in the article were made in situations in which ground rules permitted Hastings to use the material in his story.

A member of McChrystal’s team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal’s 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was "clearly off the record." Aides "made it very clear to Michael: ‘This is private time. These are guys who don’t get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record,’ " according to this source. In the story, the team members are portrayed as drinking heavily.

…Officials also questioned Rolling Stone’s fact-checking process, as described by [Rolling Stone executive editor Eric] Bates in an interview this week with Politico. "We ran everything by them in a fact-checking process as we always do," Bates said. "They had a sense of what was coming, and it was all on the record, and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it."

These anonymous sources even provided copies of emails between a Rolling Stone fact-checker and McChrystal media aide. 

In my view, there is no reason for this article at all except to allow anonymous allies of the general to strike back—without bearing any responsibility for their attacks.  It’s as if the newspaper said, “We’ll do your dirty work for you.”

That The Post  allowed this reinforces the point Politico made in an earlier post subsequently scrubbed of the inside baseball admission.  The point was an admission that what made Hastings’ story so dramatic was that usually reporters hold back things they hear that might destroy their relationship with the institutions they cover.  In other words, we can’t trust what the Post  or other newspapers tell us because reporters and editors don’t want to upset their cozy relationship with the people they cover.

Did Politico Hide the Dirty Laundry?

Date: June 25, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Ethics, Politico

In case you missed it, an interesting story about Politico and the scrutiny it’s received for scrubbing an “inside journalism” quote from an earlier version of a story about Rolling Stone’s Gen. McChrystal article.  Jay Rosen at Press Think has the details.  CJR follows up.

Media Gives Points for Spin

Date: June 24, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: "Liberal Media", Conservative terminology, Punditry

Michael Kinsley hits it on the head:

What the press seems to value is successful spin. As gaffes and the phony umbrage that follows them gradually swallow up our politics, the press has taken on a bizarre role like that of judges in a figure-skating competition, as opposed to referees in a hockey match. What counts is the artistry. Figures in the news get points for successful spin (whether true or not), for a positive image (whether deserved or not), and for avoiding gaffes (that is, for not telling the truth.)

And, the GOP being better at spin, or at least more successful at getting people to believe lies (“death panels” anyone?), gets a better shake from the Fourth Estate than Democrats.

Wash Post Regurgitates ‘Bailout’ Myth

Date: June 24, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Conservative terminology, Financial News, Washington Post

As negotiations continue of the financial reform package in Congress, The Washington Post’s Brady Dennis regurgitates a discredited GOP talking point:  that the $150 billion, as Dennis reports, “paid for by the industry,” is a “bailout fund.”

I give him credit for mentioning that the money would come from the industry, but why does he feel compelled to repeat the GOP’s reference to it as a “bailout fund.”  By the most common understanding of the phrase a “bailout” is when other people’s money, usually the American taxpayer, saves a company.  The fund, which was dropped from the legislation according to The Post’s story, was to be financed by financial institutions.  It’s not a “bailout,” and there is nothing in using the term that adds to the story, except perhaps to perpetuate a lie.

Is that the role of the news media?

Shoot Video of Police: Go to Jail

Date: June 23, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Law enforcement, Privacy

Following up my post last week about the Washington Post story of a man who videotaped his own arrest only to be charged with violating Maryland wiretap laws, the Poynter Institute has a column with advice for journalists and private citizens who videotape or sound record police, even if both the shooter and the police are on public property and the police officer is fulfilling his public duties.

There’s not much you can do to prevent the police retaliating, especially if you live in a state where the law requires both parties consent to a recoding, because you run afoul of the wiretap laws.

Gizmodo has more.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law – requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

(Cross-posted on Commonwealth Commonsense)

Shoot Video of Police: Go to Jail

Date: June 23, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Law enforcement, Privacy

Following up my post last week about the Washington Post story of a man who videotaped his own arrest only to be charged with violating Maryland wiretap laws, the Poynter Institute has a column with advice for journalists and private citizens who videotape or sound record police, even if both the shooter and the police are on public property and the police officer is fulfilling his public duties.

There’s not much you can do to prevent the police retaliating, especially if you live in a state where the law requires both parties consent to a recoding, because you run afoul of the wiretap laws.

Gizmodo has more.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law – requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

(Cross-posted on News Commonsense)

Pay for Your Online Paper

Date: June 23, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Pay for Content

I can’t say i link often to the Tallahassee Democrat.  But it’ll cost me if I do, starting July 1: $9.95/month unless I subscribe to the print edition.

Funny thing about this article announcing the new rates:  They buried the lede 12 ‘graphs into the story.  Must be news they’re not proud of.