Remember the New Yorker story I linked last week about Iran and Sy Hersh? Glenn really lets the media court jesters have it for buying the official line:
Dutifully writing down what government officials say and then publishing it under cover of anonymity is what media figures in D.C. refer to as “real reporting.” But the most hilarious part of this orgy of cowardly anonymity comes at the end, when Politico explains what is supposedly the prime defect in Hersh’ journalism:
Hersh has faced criticism for his heavy reliance on anonymous sources, but New Yorker editor David Remnick has repeatedly said he stands by his reporter’s work.
That’s the criticism that ends an article that relies exclusively on anonymous government sources, appearing in a D.C. gossip ragnotorious for granting anonymity to any powerful figure who requests it for any or no reason. The difference, of course, is that the Pulitzer Prize-winning, five-time-Polk-Award-recipient investigative journalist who uncovered the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib scandal grants anonymity to those who are challenging the official claims of those in power (that’s called “journalism”), while Politico uses it (as it did here) to serve those in power and shield them from all accountability as they spew their propaganda (which is called being a “lowly, rank Royal Court propagandist”).
Politico, criticizing Sy Hersh for using anonymous sources. Beautiful!
i don’t think there’s anything wrong with using anonymous sources, even anonymous officials giving the party line. my only issue is that the anonymity should be conditional on the source telling the truth. getting more truthful info is the whole purpose of allowing people to be anonymous. all too often officials use anonymity to say stuff they know is untrue, but they want to spread an idea around and don’t want to be responsible for starting the lie. if it is clear that is what happened, the reporter should out the source.
Zackly, Noze!