Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And since I extensively quoted the New York Times' own policy on confidential news sources, it's only fair to note that policy was codified in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal. Even ever years later, 'public editor' Clark Hoyt had some rather sharp words for his own employers in thesepieces on the (over) uses and abuses of A. Nonymous as a source.
-
Hard News: Special Sources, in reply to Sacha,
If the world were actually that black or white, we wouldn’t have any ethical struggles.
That’s nudging awfully close to a man-splain there, Sacha. I’ll just say I sleep perfectly well after deciding (with the full support of my editor) that I wasn’t going to be used by a local body politician to undermine an opponent unless he was willing to do so on the record. Oddly enough, he wasn’t and we still got the story. A better story that wasn’t compromised by a drip-fed from someone whose own agenda wasn’t open to being assessed by readers. (And, frankly, where the Herald
I'm not saying granting a source anonymity is never, ever justified. That really is taking things a moral absolute too fair, but I'd love to know if The Herald has an explicit, publicly available policy on anonymous sources like this:
In routine interviewing – that is, most of the interviewing we do – anonymity must not be automatic or an assumed condition. In that kind of reporting, anonymity should not be offered to a source. Exceptions will occur in the reporting of highly sensitive stories, when it is we who have sought out a source who may face legal jeopardy or loss of livelihood for speaking with us. Similarly they will occur in approaches to authoritative officials in government who, as a matter of policy, do not speak for attribution. On those occasions, we may use an offer of anonymity as a wedge to make telephone contact, get an interview or learn a fact. In such a case, the reporter should press the source, after the conversation, to go on the record with the newsworthy information that has emerged.
Whenever anonymity is granted, it should be the subject of energetic negotiation to arrive at phrasing that will tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source – in particular, whether the source has firsthand knowledge of the facts.
In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole story.
We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available.
Confidential sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us — or they must be the authorized representatives of an authority, known to us, who has such knowledge.
We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is.
We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.
Honestly, how much of that test did Claire Trevett pass?
-
Hard News: Special Sources, in reply to Richard Aston,
Seems to me the purpose of the leak was to distract from the real issue – ie why was MSD so woefully incompetent and at what level did this incompetence go to.
Well, two points:
1) It is possible for even the tiniest prole brain to think/care/get enormously fucked off about more than one thing at a time.
2) The New Zealand Herald is the only daily newspaper serving New Zealand's largest newspaper market. So, yeah, I don't think it's a "distraction" to think about how a media outlet with that kind of clout is reporting this story.
-
Hard News: Special Sources, in reply to Russell Brown,
So, no, I don’t think Trevett or the Herald have it in for Keith. It’s just the dance.
Of course, part of the dance can be saying “well, I’m not going to run this unless you’re willing to go on the record and fully attributable” – which journalists do all the time. They also say “this isn’t going out under my by-line or the masthead of my employer under any circumstances” – which is the fate of a non-trivial amount of Wellywood political gossip, rumour and scuttle-butt every day of the week. (Personally, I think it's a very good thing NZ politicians can go through separation/divorce without landing on a local equivalent of Drudge or Gawker. For now.)
But, sorry, I still don’t think credible and ethical news organizations get to have it both ways. You can speak truth to power, or you can choose to pimp your credibility for access and play along with a political strategy to discredit a political embarrassment.
-
Hard News: Special Sources, in reply to Hebe,
Claire Trevett is doing what she calculates she has to do to keep her political/govt sources sweet.
Fine, and the next time her employer wants to take the editorial high moral ground about political/public sector accountability and transparency (to paraphrase Julia Gillard) they should look in a mirror first.
You’re missing what seems a quite plausible explanation: the information provided to him by other staff wasn’t correct, and he passed it on in good faith.
Quite possibly. It's also perfectly possible Trevett's source was in Paula Bennett's office, and her (admittedly less unequivocal) denial was equally in good faith. But either way, I still think it's a matter of legitimate public interest to know where this came from, because I'm personally not cool with politically motivated smears being waved off with "we don't disclose our sources."
-
Hard News: Special Sources, in reply to izogi,
I don’t see how he could possibly know for certain.
I'm naive enough to think when a very senior civil servant gets a heads up that a shit-storm is about to break over his ministry, he'd be on top of the response. Then again, it seems nobody is accountable for anything in this saga except making sure their six-figure pay cheques have cleared.
-
Hard News: Special Sources, in reply to Sacha,
Well, quite.
If the story did come from within the MSD, either Boyle (who is the chief executive of a major ministry of state) is a mendacious bastard whose staff were cold-bloodedly prepared to “out” a political embarrassment, and lied about it with impunity.
Option B: He doesn’t have a very firm grip on what his ministry’s “media relations” staff do when in damage control mode.
Option C: Option B, with the plausible deniability of “I know what I don’t want to know, and that’s quite enough for me.”
None of these options are particularly comforting. YMMV, but I don't think this is about "burning" or "protecting" a source, but our right to know as media consumers and citizens whether we're reading news or a covert spin strategy being conducted with the complicity of people who should be speaking truth to power not enabling it.
-
There are good reasons for that to be case, even when it generates this kind of farce. If sources, even sources who aren’t necessarily noble actors, could not be assured of confidentiality, some forms of reporting would simply be impossible.
And that;s fair enough, as far as it goes. But I could also note that if Claire Trevett's source was from within the MSD (and I've no evidence either way) then, The Herald knowingly published a pork pie from Brendan Boyle. This is a non-trivial matter of legitimate public interest. Isn't it?
And doesn't it create a credibility gap next time The Herald (or Campbell Live or anyone else who ran this story) decides to ride an editorial high horse on political accountability and transparency?
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
I am not suggesting that Ira has done anything wrong, he has not
And even if he had, I wish some people who really should know better (or have access to legal advisors who do) weren’t throwing around terms like “blackmail” and “extortion” with such gay abandon.
Call me an old fashioned girl, if you must, but I still believe words mean things, and some charges should be tested in a court of law not a trial by media.
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Russell Brown,
Could someone please remind Brendan Boyle exactly who lays criminal charges in a democracy?
Of course, the MSD can dedicate time and resources to laying a complaint with the Police and the subsequent investigation. But one would think Mr Boyle and his staff have something else rather complicated and time-consuming that should have their undivided attention first. Don’t you think?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 152 153 154 155 156 … 1235 Older→ First