[Dean's World] Dean: "Confidential Sources"

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dean:
"Confidential Sources"
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1169077380.shtml


   If you've ever wondered what all that "confidential sources" stuff you
   read about in the papers is all about, or how it really works, it
   turns out to be a much more well-defined protocol than you might
   imagine. You can [1]read about it here.

   I've been receiving emails for some time now from people in Washington
   DC who occasionally stamp that sort of stuff on their emails to me. I
   honestly don't know how I feel about that; so far I've never used
   anything I got like that on Dean's World. "A well-placed source tells
   me..." is a line I hope I never wind up writing on anything serious.
   It would feel kind of... icky.

   On the other hand, I'm already trapped. When I get these emails I read
   them, and I haven't enough pride to proudly stand up and say "you
   don't get to swear me to secrecy without asking me in advance! Don't
   send me these emails if you don't want me to quote you!" No, I'm just
   a little too cowardly, and a little too curious, to do that.

   Sad, eh?

   The funny part is, such things are usually way more mundane and less
   interesting than you probably imagine. Indeed, it's pretty apparent
   that the pols sometimes put stuff out intentionally on the "not for
   personal attribution" or "on condition of anonymity" line just so they
   can promote their point of view. Or sometimes they do it just to make
   their observations seem somehow more spooky or interesting than they
   actually are.

   "Speaking on condition of anonymity, highly-placed staff members in
   the House of Representatives stated that there was devastating
   evidence against the President's policies that would be made public
   very soon." Or what the heck ever.

   Indeed, the way to manipulate it is inherently obvious: the press has
   been trained to know that if something is marked "off the record" or
   "not for personal attribution," politicians or their staff members can
   release all kinds of outrageous accusations and innuendo.

   To be clear: not everyone who speaks "on condition of anonymity" or
   "not for personal attribution" is doing something wrong or evil or
   nefarious. Sometimes they're just making routine observations, or
   revealing genuinely useful information.

   But still there's something kind of slimy about it, isn't there? It
   seems to be an intentional way of surrendering the idea of
   transparency in government.

   I guess most people don't care enough about this. I kind of wish they
   did, though.

References

   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_source#.22On_background.22