Spinonymous sourcing from Politico
April 17, 2009 12:11 pm ET by Simon Maloy
As noted by Greg Sargent and others, the Politico, in its write-up of President Obama's decision to release the CIA torture memos, granted anonymity to a "top official" from the Bush administration defending the interrogation procedures as "techniques that work" and attacking Obama for inflicting "grave damage to our national security." Sargent corresponded with Politico's Mike Allen, asking why he allowed this official to defend his boss and take pot shots at the new guy while hiding behind the shield of anonymity. Allen said the situation is "not ideal, but better than making readers wonder what the official Bush view is."
But how could it be the "official Bush view" anyway if it's being provided anonymously? Moreover, can readers really "wonder what the official Bush view is," given that Bush himself has made clear where he stands on the use of these interrogation methods? Dick Cheney, for his part, has not held back in saying that Obama's national security decisions have made the country less safe.
Put simply, why grant anonymity to a Bush official to (a) repeat Bush's defense of his policies and (b) criticize Obama, as Cheney has done? Shouldn't readers be given full information to be able to evaluate the speaker's credibility and possible personal stake in the issue and maybe for other reporters to follow up by actually challenging the speaker on his or her assertions?
Politico is simply not journalism.
It is a format and medium for the loudest, squeekiest, most well-connected wheels to get their headlines noticed.
MMFA did a great job exposing Politico's mission statement as driving click-thrus with TMZ-style stories and worry about ramifications of bogus material after the fact.
The reason anonymity is granted is because it serves Mike Allen. Calling it a "top official" gives him an aura of insider-ness and mystique - shows that he's got "savvy" and is "in the know", talking about things in secret and behind the backs of others.
Saying exactly who it is just makes it seem like he reads an official statement, where's the fun in that for him? It doesn't give him cred, it just makes him into a common mouthpiece who might as well write AP articles. Especially if the "top official" is some no-name guy we've barely heard of.
This is a great example and instance to note something very important.
There is in Congress presently something called "the shield law" I believe (I should research it real quick for it's Bill number and official name, but I don't feel like it): this law is meant to shield anonymous sources in our Government, actually to shield the reporters who report what they say, shield them from being required by a Judge (in a legal proceeding) to name their source, to name the anonymous person who said the thing (and the Judges in those proceedings are never conducting an "Inquisition", but are always instead trying to establish facts in a legal proceeding).
Briefly: we see this kind of thing can be used for political reasons, and to do damage to others, even slander them (like Steven Hatfill was, when the Bush administration anonymously implied he was the anthrax guy, simply to make the appearance that they the Bush administration had the anthrax killer, and had the case solved, which they didn't) ... anonymous sources can say anything they like, for whatever reason good or bad, and they can never be held accountable, for the reason of their anonymity... now, there are folks who immediately think of "whistleblowers" when they think of these type things, but wait, they think wrong: "whistleblowers" should never be anonymous (for how can we trust what they've said), and in being named when they "blow the whistle", their fame then becomes a protection to them, and besides, they can and should be protected in any other statutory way also... well, this misguided "shield law" being presently considered, does exactly the kind of thing you just read about in the above item: it "shields" slanderers and anyone one else who whould do whatever damage for whatever reason, behind a "shield" of anonymity... it's a timely topic, and an important point: the "shield law" is terribly misguided, and in truth does absolutely nothing for "whistleblowers", but instead protects slanderers and who knows who else.
Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, S.448
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s448/show
I mentioned how whoever it was in the Bush administration that slandered Steven Hatfill, purely for purposes of leading the American People to think they had the anthrax killer and the case was solved, they would have hidden behind the "shield law" if they could have. Luckily no such law was in place then, and the USA Today reporter who participated in the Bush scam/slander, was fined greatly for every day she refused a Judge's instruction to tell the Court who it was in the Bush administration that had falsely and anonymously claimed Hatfill had something to do with the anthrax attacks.
Also, consider this from a Wikipedia article titled "Shield Laws in the United States":
"In recent years, a larger effort by journalists to press for federal shield laws formed following the Plame affair/CIA leak scandal, in which reporters who released the name of Valerie Plame were asked who their sources were. One of the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times, was jailed for 85 days in 2005 for refusing to disclose her source in the government probe."
Another great example of the potential use of a "shield": with robert novak having participated in a Bush administration scheme to "out" Valerie Plame (for the sole purpose of intimidating her husband Joseph Wilson, the author of the NY Times op-ed piece "What I Didn't Find In Africa"), novak could have "shielded" Robert Armitage or whoever, and refused a Judge's order to tell the Court who "outed" Valerie Plame...
Well, go figure, that anyone thinks such a "shield" for those who would manipulate the media anonymously, and slander innocent people, and "out" CIA operatives, go figure someone thinks such a "shield" is a good idea.