Those phrases aren’t mine they’re taken from The New York Times’s policy on anonymous sources. For example, one could worry - at a time when trust in media is declining - that the “appearance of anonymous sources in routine government and political stories” could strain a news organization’s “trust with readers,” leading to questions about whether it was “carrying water for someone else’s agenda.” Or one could argue that while anonymous sources are sometimes necessary, they should be used only as a “last resort” and only to provide newsworthy information rather than “just spin or speculation.” At the very least, “a story that hangs entirely on anonymous sourcing should always get special scrutiny.” One can point out their rank hypocrisy: For instance, that White House chief of staff Reince Priebus recently used unnamed sources to criticize a New York Times article that used unnamed sources, or that White House press secretary Sean Spicer literally shut the doors on news organizations that were seeking comment from him on the record.īut given their exceptionally widespread use - I can’t remember a time when the political news cycle was more dependent on anonymously sourced stories than it is right now - a more nuanced, cool-headed critique of anonymous sourcing might be useful. By making what amounts to the worst possible version of the argument - ANONYMOUS SOURCES ARE LIES AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED!!! - Trump and the White House make themselves easy to dismiss. “Because they have no sources, they just make them up when there are none,” Trump said at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, to take one of many recent examples.
Take, for example, Trump and the White House’s recent admonitions of reporters for using anonymous sources.
And now, Trump’s screaming, hyperbolic attacks on the press have the potential to drown out any constructive attempts at figuring out what went wrong. There was never much of a learning process after the election, with media outlets finding various scapegoats for the surprising result 2 - the polls! fake news! Clinton’s strategy in Wisconsin! - instead of examining whether there was some deeper problem with their reporting methods. But I’m worried about that old adage about those who don’t learn from history being doomed to repeat it. Doesn’t the industry need more solidarity at a time when it’s under attack? In fact, I’ve had a couple of friends who - while they’ve mostly agreed with the substance of these articles - have asked whether this is really the best time for media criticism. And President Trump, the winner of that election, has to go out and call the media the “enemy of the American people.” Suffice it to say that I’m not on board with Trump’s position.
THE INSIDE SCOOP SERIES
Here we are, in the midst of a series of articles 1 about the media’s shortcomings in covering the 2016 general election. This is the eighth article in a series that reviews news coverage of the 2016 general election, explores how Donald Trump won and why his chances were underrated by most of the American media.
0 kommentar(er)
