Journalistic credibility is hard enough to find these days and someone who deliberately makes you bleed should expect the same in return.

Jane — why would the unions be in favor of cutting Soc Sec benefits?

Right on Jane!

Hey, Jane!

A commenter over at Glennzilla’s asked if maybe Brooks and Klein could sort of excuse themselves by pointing out that they’re opinion writers and not reporters and, thus, not subject to the NYT’s new “standards” on citing anonymous sources.

Sounds like a truckload of horse-pucky to me. What do you think?

FunnyDiva

If you grant anonymity to someone, and it becomes evident that they have lied to you, they need to be exposed.

Absolutely.

And you’re right about this whole thing largely escaping the attention of the media. I don’t think they’re used to or capable of dealing with all the important stories out there, plus bullshit like Limbaugh, at once. Not doing actual repoprting on them, as opposed to transcription from the usual suspects, anyway. Imagine if there was also a foreign policy crisis?
Jeez.

Thanks Jane.

You know the argument that if you expose a source who lied to you, then no one else will talk to you, really cuts the wrong way.

If it obvious that you will keep faith with an honest source, but not throw your integrity away for someone trying to corruptly use that anonimity, I think honest leakers would be MUCH more inclined to talk to you.

I would never give an interview to a Judy Miller type, because she protected a lie, I have given off the record and background interviews to reporters who say no source ever burned them twice–and googling proved it.

Why would you even wnat a quote from someone who chose you for your lack of journalistic standards?

I don’t know crap abiut joirnalistic standards or practices. I just think that no matter what hat you’re wearing (reporter or opinion person or entertainer/clown), if you represent something as a fact, it oughta be a fact.

Plus ca change… we can believe in. Sigh.

Seems like too many journamalismos have “W” syndrome. Can’t admit a mistake and invariably learn the wrong lesson or regret the wrong thing.

Pfffffffft!!!

FunnyDiva

OT – i have a question – why do we need 60 votes when there aren’t 100 Senators? Minnesota has only one senator. Therefore, the margin we need to pass anything without debate is excessively high if they say we need 60 – isn’t that right?

What LHP said!

Jane, earlier this week, didn’t you set an example for how the pleas for anonymity should be handled? “since there’s no reason for this source to be anonymous if they’re truly speaking for the administration, I’m not going to bother publishing what they said.”

I noted that statement at the time and appreciated that you’d acknowledged a response from the WH while calling bullsh*t at the same time.

XXOO
FunnyDiva

I don’t expect the corporate media organ grinder journalists to ever do the right thing, but Ezra would be smart to reveal the identities of who lied to him. As Jane says, his credibility takes a hit. From this point forward how can anyone read what he writes without questioning how accurate his facts are? He operates on the internet, and on the internet the only thing that matters is your whuffie (credibility).

Any “access” Ezra thinks he’s bought himself by keeping sources anonymous is undermined by the falsehoods he was given to report. His access is meaningless if it’s nothing but propaganda.

WOW. The guy with all the flowery speeches turned out to be just another POLITICIAN.

WHODA THUNK IT?!

“…if you represent something as a fact, it oughta be a fact…”

By that standard:

There goes Faux Newz…

For starters.

“…corporate media organ grinder journalists…”

I can just see Roger Ailes with a little chain tied to Billo. That’s terrifying. I won’t sleep for a week….

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

First of all, what do ya think Ezra learned from this and will it push ‘im to be a better journalist and look for sources of REAL political news like I.F. Stone did?

Secondly, this is the political shell game with the media that the Clinton White House was so good at under Rahm Tiny Dancer Emmanuel…I think what we may have learned is that the folks who push back firstist with the mostist, in this case progressives (take a bow Sister Jane), and ORGANIZE the forces to make the administration turn in one direction or another, those folks will prevail…isn’t this reminiscent of of that apocryphal quote from FDR: “I agree with you now make me do it.” I think what progressives are learnin’ is that if they go out and do the political work to ORGANIZE their forces then they ken effect the policy decisions…I’m still worried about Rahm cultivatin’ the “New Democrats” though. There’s a lotta old K-Street money pourin’ out of the bailout that could turn a demur little Tiny Dancer’s head don’tcha know?

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITON, IT’S GETTIN HARDER TA SEE TARGETS!!

Unions (also) played a role in persuading the president to delay revamping Social Security and possibly making benefits less generous.”

To delay “revamping” – Revamping social security can indicate cutting benefits, raising the cap on taxable income, raising the retirement age, all of these, none of these, some of these or something else. (The pundit class, right wingers, Republicans, blue dogs and new dogs do not want to talk about raising the cap.)

Recall that Dubya also wished to revamp social security by cutting contributions and funnelling “a portion” to IRA’s. Dubya, of course, could not explain how social security could survive by cutting contributions. Since the right wing posits that social security funds are in danger of depletion, Dubya’s plan made no sense – even to the most rabid right wing voters.

Obama seems too eager to please the pundit class, right wingers, Wall Street, Republicans, Blue dogs and new dogs.

But if you expose the liars, they’ll never talk to you again. You’ll lose your sources. /s

It’d be nice if the media management cared about truth in reporting and rotated reporters inside The Beltway to reduce the cozy fellowship between sources and reporter. Since selling stories is more important than accuracy, changing how sources are treated isn’t going to solve the problem.

That’ll happen.

How long is this list of burned lying sources?

Who among the pundit-journo complex has ever burned a source for lying?

I was thinking that. and Rush, of course.

Obama wants old people to eat cat food. But he’s gonna make sure the cat food companies sell it cheaper.

Cat food should be affordable to all Americans.

Senate cloture rules put in place in 1975 require three-fifths supermajority. 3/5 of 100 is 60. 3/5 of 99 is considered 60 (59.4). The Senate needs to drop to 98 senators for a 59-vote majority.

someone lies? all bets/protections/perks are off.
the rules change.
two options-pounce or wait.

one thing about liars, the shit they cause always comes back around and lands in their lap. pretty much every time. but meanwhile you have to sit back while they’re lookin’ good and be ill watching and waiting for it to come about.

hard to choose sometimes.

i prefer the ‘everyone is their own worst enemy’ way and watching them panic waiting for someone to call them out. that way the ’cause no suffering’ creed can still be the rule…and they are causing themselves way more harm than i ever could.

they’re ready with battle talk, but a real liar can’t go long before combusting or revealing themselves in some way or another to an ever-widening circle. instant gratification is nice, but it’s much more pleasant watching them squirm and handing them more rope.

but i guess it’s however you’re wired. or what kind of confrontation you’re good at….need both kinds to take them out.

Citizen eCAHNomics:

“But if you expose your sources, they’ll never talk to you again. You’ll lose you sources.”

But that’s the false threat that I.F. Stone exposed by usin’ public and published sources and givin’ EXTRA-governmental sources exposure that neturalized the double top secret double talkin’ spinners.

There has been a large space waitin’ for real journalists to follow the Stone model and the internet gives ‘em the vehicle.

Oops, that was in response to Kathryn in MA #10.

If you grant anonymity to someone, and it becomes evident that they have lied to you, they need to be exposed. It’s the appropriate corrective in the situation. Ezra needs to publicly name the person who set him up.

well done

I would add an addendum though;

if you grant anonymity and then the info is wrong, they might retain anonymity if they can prove they didn’t lie but they themselves were lied to

Breaking: Obama to sign exec order on Monday overturning Bush on stem cell research per CNN

Mine was a snark, which I assume you saw but wanted to make your point anyhow.

Yes, I do see signs that the internet is starting to make a difference. The Rs, for example, used to be able to get away with crazy OTT villification of their opponents until the lefty blogs came around and started revealing it for what it is. Now the same R behavior sounds like the crazy stuff it is.

for some reason I thought he already did that

Here’s what I would suggest for an honest anonymous-sources policy: tell people in advance, if they ask for anonymity, that you’ll withhold their names, provided that they tell the truth. If, later on, you (the reporter or blogger) discover that the source apparently lied about a factual matter, you’ll give them a chance to defend themselves (after all, maybe the original source told the truth and someone else is lying). But if they can’t satisfy you (the reporter or blogger) that the original “scoop” was honest, they’re outed.

If they won’t agree to those terms in advance, don’t quote them.

But I’m not sure it’s right to out these people if they thought they had what passes in the American press for a source-reporter agreement.

Evidently he wanted congress to pass laws to this effect but is doing this in interim so that funding can begin.

We have no news media in this country outside of the blogosphere. The traditional media are nothing more than a conduit for propaganda and infotainment. They are there to distract and misinform.

So they pass on what they are told without naming names and whether they are being told the truth is really beside the point. The truth is not their job.

If you grant anonymity to someone, and it becomes evident that they have lied to you, they need to be exposed. It’s the appropriate corrective in the situation.

I’m still waiting for the “source” that Jason Leopold cited when reporting that Rove got indicted to get outed. Wha..? You mean it’s never gonna happen?

I think that Obama can be a progressive president, provided that we demand it. His instinct is to be a centrist compromiser, so if we sit back and cheer for him, while the right screams bloody murder, he’ll try to appease the right. But he needs the backing of the base. In this case, it looks like the unions managed to beat back the Rubinite/neoliberal advisors. Progressives have to keep pushing to get in.

“…We have no news media in this country outside of the blogosphere…”

No wonder these MSM types gets so snotty about the bloggers.

This assumes that Jason Leopold actually had a source for that assertion who was in a position to know. More likely, he either made it up or was reporting gossip.

Thanks for the great trip down memory lane. :>)

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Sign me up.

Obama’s behavior indicates he is not cognizant of a pitfall in appeasing the wingnuts. They will never support him. So if he loses the lefty supporters, he’s hung out to dry.

Outstanding job, Jane! Aloha Ya’ll! I’m still alive and kicking…! I miss ya’ll tho…! 8-(

Yep. He probably pulled the whole scenario out of his ass. Does that mean he’s need to do a public mooning to reveal his source?

Correct. The wingnuts will screech and whine until they move him in their direction and when he reaches out his hand, they’ll go ahead and rip his arm off anyway. He’s making a mistake if he alienates the voting block that put him in the Catbird Seat in the first place. Penny-wise and pound foolish.

Jane, this is an excellent point. We need to comment on this issue at the NYT or whereever/whenever anonymous sources are used in this way. (Brooks got nailed on Tuesday in the comment section.)

New post: Justice Ginsburg to Senator Bunning: Screw You

We have no news media in this country outside of the blogosphere.

not much, but this is just not so. i know i’m a broken record on the subject but Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! is a fabulous, really outstanding, weekday news program. on over 700 stations (radio, tv and internet) it’s not only great, it is where a large number engaged people all over the country get their news.

if you don’t believe me, how about bill moyers, jay rosen and glenn greenwald? when they got together to talk about the news media who do they use as the example to measure everyone else by?

BILL MOYERS: I think you wrote on your blog that Dave Brody from the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pat Robertson’s outfit, will one Sunday show up on “Meet the Press.” But an Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now” will never show up on “Meet the Press.” What’s behind that phenomenon?

JAY ROSEN: I think part of the reason is that if Amy Goodman came on “Meet the Press,” she would say all sorts of things that not only challenge the people on the program, but challenge what they have been saying over the years. Would go back, in a sense, discredit the narrative that’s been building up for a long time. And even though it’s maybe not wholly conscious, the idea that there’s a kind of building narrative that is more or less accurate, that we kind of tell you what’s going on in Washington, is a common assumption in the press. And people who would completely shatter that, don’t.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think that’s exactly right. It’s all about the content of views. Rush Limbaugh can depict himself as being this insurgent outsider. But he supported the wars of the last eight years. He supported the tax policies that Ronald Reagan essentially instituted as conventional wisdom, that we need to lower taxes, reduce government spending. All of the conventional clichés that the media airs frequently, and doesn’t need much time in order to explain, are ones that Rush Limbaugh and the furthest fringes of the right essentially embrace.

And so, to include them into our discussion is not very disruptive at all, whereas if you had people on from the left who were advocating things like the United States’ responsibility for its unpopularity in the world, the fact that we wage wars and bomb other countries and invade and occupy other countries far more than any nation on the planet.

To include somebody like that would not only threaten the vested interests of everybody who’s participating in these conversations, it would disrupt the entire narrative, as Jay said it would. Almost sound foreign, as though these views are un-serious views, don’t belong in mainstream, serious shows. Because these views are never heard. They’re stigmatized, they’re demonized as being things that don’t really deserve a platform. And so, you can’t include advocates of these views in these shows.

JAY ROSEN: You know what’s really striking to me about this, is Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked for Colin Powell, when he retired from the government, he said that the people in power: Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld especially, were, in his view, radicals. That the radicals were the people actually running the government.

And this idea that the people in power were kind of outside the sphere of normal government, never made its way into the establishment press at all. The idea that Wilkerson could have been right, that the real radicals were running the federal government, never really penetrated their narrative at all.

BILL MOYERS: How do you explain the fact that so many in the press, pundits and others as well, were saying Obama has to be bipartisan?

JAY ROSEN: I think that the ideology of the press is not so much liberal or conservative. They think themselves the keepers of realism, of savviness. I think the real religion of the American press is savviness. And in their view, it isn’t savvy to say you’re going to mobilize the anger and frustration of the American people and bring that power to Washington to change it.

That’s not how politics works. The way politics works is you say things like that to get elected, and then, once you’re in, you make your accommodations, you show that you want to hew to the center. You demonstrate that you’re bipartisan. You pick people who are familiar.

And it’s those eternal laws of politics that journalists feel they know better than us. And they expect politics to kind of run down these rails that they’ve laid down, because then we have to turn to them for the inside story. And this is what they want to continue.

i’ve look hard, and found nothing that comes even close.

No wonder these MSM types gets so snotty about the bloggers.

Obama tries in vain to please the right – the right will never become Obama girls. Bloggers know they will always get short shrift with the MSM. So f**k ‘em.

The MSM sucks no matter what truths we say about it. It is a tool of Corporations in pursuit of Corporate Interests.

I really like Ezra, and it pains me that it looks like he was getting played for access.

I’m not going to hold my breath for him to name the person who clowned him, but I sure hope it makes him more circumspect–
[read “cynical!”]

Another great source is:

http://ianmasters.org/

Sunday morning at 11AM, Pacific. It streams at KPFK.org.

Masters does some first-rate interviews.

No wonder these MSM types gets so snotty about the bloggers.

I have said this before: the traditional media think we are lazy, sloppy, partisan, and unprofessional, which is really the same opinion I have of them. The difference is that when they say it they are pointing to the worst among us in the blogosphere. When we do it, we are pointing to their best like the NYT, WaPo, Time, Newsweek, cable and network news.

fortunately there are lots of good interview programs. i haven’t found that to be true of news programs though – which is why amy goodman and democracy now! is such a stand out.

where else can i hear naomi klein debate alan greenspan (klein wiped the floor with greenspan, natch). who had better reporting on the miami ftaa protests, the rncs, all the antiwar protests? who had better reporting on haiti or on east timor? who gave the best interview of bill clinton ever? the list goes on and on.

If you grant anonymity to someone, and it becomes evident that they have lied to you, they need to be exposed. It’s the appropriate corrective in the situation. Ezra needs to publicly name the person who set him up.

Yup.
And it also gave them an advantage over any electeds who were willing to speak for the record.

I’m surprised Greenspan would even deign to appear on Goodman’s show. I can see how he might be stupid enough to (attempt to) debate Naomi Klein, however. I’m sure she cleaned his clock.

Jane, Glenn and Ezra! I think I may have a solution for you. Instead of defending competing or dissonant stories from sources who begin with the untrustworthy stance of anonymity, why not agree to trust each other enough to believe each of you were lied to???? Then, you can’t get too invested in what you were told by your hidden sources. In fact, you could mock the gaposis in what you have been told. You could do some joint writing beginning with , “I kid you Not!”

goodman and her producers are the best (and don’t forget jeremy scahill who came from democracy now!). here’s another quote i just found from glenn greenwald (who is not shy about criticizing media figures):

Not only Goodman, but the entire Democracy Now team are professional journalists in the best sense of that term.

i know a lot of Democrats get irked by her (because she holds all politicians to the same standards and none of them get a pass). but that just makes me like her more.

Legacy media–that’s cruel, Jane.

It is possible that your source was honestly wrong, so you probably shouldn’t throw them under the bus first time. But put them on notice. Tell them they are no longer trustworthy, and they have to regain your trust.

Thank you, Jane, and for all your work on labor and social issues, topics the MSM have decreed don’t apply to them and couldn’t possibly interest Main Street Americans.

Your point about lying sources is exactly right. It should be clear that the source gives up the protection of anonymity when he lies and uses a reporter to disseminate those lies, for the same reason a criminal loses his plea deal when he lies or withholds material facts. He broke his half of the bargain; he doesn’t get to keep the other half.

True, a senior source might say what she thought was correct and get pimped by a more senior source. Christine Todd Whitman would know all about that dynamic. But then that itself is a story that ought to come out. If appropriate, it could come out without revealing the pimped source. But a major calamity imposed on us by the Bush administration is the demise of the trust in news organizations.

As I mentioned nearly two years ago when discussing whether Judy Miller, she of the mendacious sources, was a genuine reporter or an operative for Bush and/or PNAC:

But aside from this hypocrisy about the alleged sanctity of sources, Miller, as a person whose newspaper career spans three decades, should also be aware that in old-school journalism, if a source screws over a reporter with bad information, the reporter is free to out the source.  In fact, it is the reporter’s duty to out a lying source.  As Atrios said, and reporters John Gizzi and David Freddoso at the conservative outfit Human Events demonstrated in 2004, “A source lies to you, and you find out, you burn him.  Period.”   And goodness knows that Judy’s sources fed her the most egregious garbage over the years, as the corrections to her articles attest.

…the traditional media think we are lazy, sloppy, partisan, and unprofessional, which is really the same opinion I have of them…

An important difference between the two: Corruption in tradMed (I mean some, not all). Very rare to see corruption asserted against Left Blogistan since there is so little actual power there for the corruption to grow in. TradMed on the other hand has real power, in that the great majority of people listen to it and believe it to a significant degree… and that’s where the corruption creeps in.

New post: Franken-Coleman: Norm’s Incredible Shrinking Ballot Universe

That made me laugh, Hugh.

Are you people really this naive about the way the political world works or are you just really cynical? You claim that Ezra Klein’s sources lied to him and yet the only verifiable facts support his claims. The fact is there’s no social security reform under consideration right now. Politicians put things ‘on the table’ that they have no intention of pursuing. Every single day. I’m sure it helps your ego to think you fought the brave liberal battle against the evil conservatives in the Obama administration who secretly want to gut Social Security. There’s even some truth to the notion. The salient fact remains that any administration will have a variety of views in it. The analysis of Klein’s sources (that there’s no political gain in mucking with Social Security and that health care is the real issue) turned out to be the actual position of the administration. Almost those exact same words came out of Obama’s mouth. If you folks helped that along, more power to you. But don’t delude yourselves about how this game is played. These sorts of leaks are important to the policy process. They create signals that let interest groups organize. They are qualitatively different from the off-the-record pronouncements that the Bush administration was fond of.

It’s pretty idiotic to invest ‘truth value’ in anonymous leaks that contradict the actions of the administration. You want me to believe that Klein’s sources lied and Brooks’ sources told the truth when the administration actions support Klein’s sources statements. Really?

Perhaps the story is that sources within the administration differ and that the real story is as you describe.

What would be equally newsworthy is finding out whether either group within the administration has more proponents than the other, or whether the administration doesn’t care which course it takes so long as it can be seen to lead where it is in fact following.

What would seem naive is if an informed journalist like Klein were not to qualify comments about his sources, and for us to believe a propagandist like Mr. Brooks without at least as many questions.

Jane, way to blow your own horn – I hate to break it to you, but there were a lot more influential people than you fighting the Peterson role in the summit, and getting to the White House about the folly of going after Social Security, now and ever. I don’t doubt there are some opponents of Social Security in high places in the Administration and Brooks may have heard what he wanted from them. I also think there are people there who will fight any efforts to gut the program – and I think/hope the political forces will eventually win out. But for you to take credit for a victory that other people really fought and won is simply too much. Get over yourself.

Agreed liars who make you look bad get burned. This way when people talk to you they know the story will be believed by readers. That and future sources will not risk lying to you.

” The Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) at Ithaca College has announced that its first annual Izzy Award for special achievement in independent media will be shared this year by two pillars of independent journalism: blogger Glenn Greenwald and “Democracy Now!” host/executive producer Amy Goodman.

Stone, who died in 1989, exposed government deceit and corruption while championing civil liberties, racial justice and international diplomacy. “

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/40496