I know something you don't know!

[Larry Gude]

Remember that? Remember the school yard? Lunch time? Recess?

Ohhh! A secret! Do tell!

No!

C'mon!

You'll tell!

No I won't!

Promise?

Pinky swear!

OK...

That's it??? Big deal...


That, ladies and gentlemen, is modern journalism, 'reporting'. Michael Kinsley, in what HAS to be a mistake, makes sense today in the Post. The piece is about Wen Ho Lee and Valerie Plame being two current cases where confidential sources, keeping them confidential, simply ain't working out very well for anyone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901552.html

The big lie;

"a matter of great public interest" and that "the public could not have been informed about the issues without the information we were able to obtain only from confidential sources."

That is the opinion of the press when it comes down to their sources and revealing them when the truth is proving elusive. It is the catch-all that they hide behind to justify what is nothing more than school age social conduct.

Now, see, the thing is we all know one central truth; There are NO secrets. The only questions are 'who knows?' and 'what are they doing with it'?

We're supposed to fear the hidden power of government and, in a cynical two way street, those in power, in the know, 'share' tidbits with 'journalists' in order that we, the stupid people, will know that pure motived 'whistle blowers' are gallantly and selflessly keeping an eye on things; anonymously. We are to be secure that even if these keepers of the gate may have ill motive, why, our intrepid reporter is there to make sure no one is misusing or misrepresenting secrets.

So what we end up with is leaks with whatever motivations or intrigue are behind them, including the possibility that the leaker is no more than a dupe and reporters and their editors and their friends and those in their circle who are running around various parts of the schoolyard, tittering with their own power and intrigue while the rest of us, blissfully ignorant, go about our business until such time the 'big' secret gets out and we all shrug in various states of 'who cares' to 'we already knew that' to 'do you have any idea how childish your little secret society thing is?' In the end, the 'secret' only served one purpose; to entertain those involved with the game. The truth ALWAYS comes out and is never something we could not have handled or understood or perhaps even figured out long before the breathless game plays it self out.

From the Mafia, to 'Deep Throat' to any and all examples of human information sharing/secret keeping, it all comes out in the wash.

There should be ZERO confidentiality protection for sources and a true journalist, a teller of truth would never even consider trying to tell you a 'fact' followed by 'but I can't tell you why'. If some would be leaker is silenced because of fears of public knowledge, so be it. If they choose to stay on a sinking ship too long, too bad.

Secrets are bad business and, at the end of the day, serve as nothing more than what the participants do with it at school; entertain themselves.

 

[Penn]

I have to agree with you...

....and the last sentence, or two, in the last paragraph:

"Of all the promises journalists make every day to protect some source or other, we may hope that most do serve the truth and the public interest. But among the confidential-source controversies that have reached the front page lately, it's zero for two."

 

[Mikeinsmd]

But LG, if confidentiality isn't protected, you may not have whistle blowers when you need them. :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

Mike...

But LG, if confidentiality isn't protected, you may not have whistle blowers when you need them. :shrug:

...that's the big issue, yes? So, it begs the question, what would happen if reporters just reported?

Let's look at the two examples provided; Wen Ho Lee and Scooter Libby.

Wen Ho was, in fact, implicated by government officials who denied it under oath and the whole thing came grinding to a halt as prosecutors rightly pursued the reporters sources and newspapers and editors all started scrambling for cover.

Now, why is that? Why did they not want to reveal their sources? A man's career has just been ruined, his reputation besmirched for all time. Would a reporter have so cavalierly reported 'Wen Ho, thief" if he had to reveal "Director So and So says so"??? Would Director So and So have been telling reporters that the guy was dirty if he knew he had to make a public accusation? Was the source lying? Afraid of publicly stating what he knew? What was his motivation? Same for the reporter. Did he run a bad story? Did his editor let him, knowingly, run a bad story? Were the interested parties worried about their own connections? Someone else's? Wen Ho Lee got $1.5 million and no apology. The reporters don't have to tell us what happened and their source(s) remain hidden.

But they are not. Numerous people know, just not under oath. THAT is a story.

Libby, same thing. Three reporters could have simply said "Cheney/Libby/Rove told me the connection between Plame and her husband and that their actions smacked of partisan politics, not serving the nation and everyone knows who she is anyway."

Well. "Everyone" either knows or don't. I will bet you that plenty of people knew who Plame was, plenty of people who were not supposed to. Friends, associates, other reporters and so forth yet the politics of it make Valerie suddenly 007, a national treasure. Maybe she is.

Enough is known about this, in the same way the Lee story is known, just not under oath. Yet.

So, again, whistle blowers? Is that how it is supposed to work? Far too much in government is 'secret' and it's all for political reasons, not security or true need to know. The goal is to control the spin.

The first step in all of this is for reporters to start acting like adults. They let themselves get used and tell themselves it is in the interest of the people. Not important enough, mind you, to state anything factually, but very important none the less. Absent them saying they will no longer be part of grade school games, removal of ALL protection of sources will make them be honest.

As it is, people don't hold reporters or politicians responsible for honesty because too many of us love being part of the game to, just like school. This story MUST true, or that one, depending on...your politics...and un-named sources are good enough because, my, my, it just HAS to be true!

You fear less people will come forth and the public interest will suffer. In my view less people with their own agendas will come forth and more people with real stories will come forward for the right reasons. The public interest is already a shambles.

Maybe the truth is worth giving a try.



The above is from Larry. Forgot to switch user names. Again.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

I fimly believe the MSM should report the truth, unbiased of course. But it is the MSM we're talking about here....

 

[Penn]

The above is from Larry. Forgot to switch user names. Again.

But, this does make sense:

"As it is, people don't hold reporters or politicians responsible for honesty because too many of us love being part of the game too, just like school. This story MUST true, or that one, depending on...your politics...and un-named sources are good enough because, my, my, it just HAS to be true!

You fear less people will come forth and the public interest will suffer. In my view less people with their own agendas will come forth and more people with real stories will come forward for the right reasons. The public interest is already a shambles."

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

I fimly believe the MSM should report the truth, unbiased of course. But it is the MSM we're talking about here....

...when I give up hope I'll spend my time in chit chat.

None of us, not one, was born a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or Leftist or Rightist or any point of the acknolweged political compass. Almost all of us would get along just fine if politics, like religion and money, never came up.

So, are there any fundamentals, things we all agree on, left?

That's what it takes.

 

[Penn]

...when I give up hope I'll spend my time in chit chat.

None of us, not one, was born a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or Leftist or Rightist or any point of the acknolweged political compass. Almost all of us would get along just fine if politics, like religion and money, never came up.

So, are there any fundamentals, things we all agree on, left?

That's what it takes.

Hmmmmm....... abortion, immigration, the size of our federal government, views on the war on terrorism, religion, border security, and on and on........

Will there still be those who will disagree, regardless of their political affiliation?

Is it really that simple?

 

[Bruzilla]

I'll hold off sheading any tears for Wen Ho Lee. This guy was a former Chinese citizen who got caught illegally downloading and secretly taking nuclear weapons secrets out of a secure facility. He knew that eveything he was doing was illegal, yet did it close to 60 times that the Feds know of, and who knows how many times that they don't. Yet thanks to a botched investigation he gets to cop to one count of mishandling after he tells the Feds why he did what he did and they have to buy his story. The thing about spies is that they don't leave a lot of evidence indicating they are spies and they are very accomplished liars, so hearing that there's not a lot of evidence or hearing a convincing story does not make the guy innocent. This was another case of there being evidence that the guy was guilty, but also room for reasonable doubt and a botched investigation making the case unwinnable. That's a far cry from innocent, which even Kinsley has to admit.

As for reporters, I don't think they should have to identify sources. My problem is that in their rush to the "scoop" they use informed sources who aren't informed. These are the retired, former, ex-, "out-of-the-loop" speculators that the reporters run to because they're the ones who are willing to give speculation when information isn't available. They are the ones who said that the DC sniper would be a lone white male, or that Jessica Lynch fought off half the Iraqi Army. Then when the investigations are completed, and the truth comes out and the media is embarassed, they attribute the speculation of their speculation sources to the official information sources and demand answers for why the earlier reports were so wrong! So the media gets to ask some poor givie "there were numerous reports earlier about how this happened, and now you're saying something different. Why the discrepencies?" instead of the media saying "Channel 4 interviewed a former FBI profiler who said that the sniper was a white male while you guys were saying that there wasn't enough data to make a profile. Do you feel that we messed up by providing erroneous information to the public?"

I would like to see a law that holds the MSM accountable for what they are reporting, and when they report a story that's based on "insider" information the person had better be an insider and not some out-of-the-loop hack who wants to get their mug on TV.