Creating the Legend

Lots in the news these days about the noble journalists et al, stoically guarding their sources, lest the whistle blowers no longer feel secure in blowing their whistles. It makes good fodder for First Amendment debate. How can we have a free and unfettered press to leash our runaway democracy if reporters have to validate their sources? Ahh, maybe I’ve inadvertently stumbled upon something here. Has anyone noticed that the free press recently has wallowed increasingly in the mire of lost credibility? Can you say Dan Rather?

Of course, we’ve got the blockbuster disclosure of the noble Mark Felt, AKA “Deep Throat”—remember what that nom de guerre refers to? But, regardless of the source of the codename, there’s the courage of Woodward and Bernstein in guarding the leaker who could, more nobly have been working from his high-ranking sworn law-enforcement officer position to correct the situation he decried in less flamboyant fashion. Yes, we’ve got to guard the sources of the reporters lest the Constitutional protections be eroded.

Take a look at this fine piece of opinion writing from the Denver Post columnist Jim Spencer: Leap of Faith Read it carefully and see if you note a problem. I’ll give you the answer in just a paragraph or two.

It was a little more than a year ago that we had the Jason Blair debacle that nearly brought the Gray Lady to her knees. The Jason Blair Fiasco Hiding behind his non-existent sources could have prolonged Mr. Blair’s paycheck and saved the jobs of a couple of high-level panjandrums at the NY Times. The security of sources can create a situation in which anything can be said and there is no accountability at the end game. It isn’t slander or libel if I destroy your career and good name if I’ve got “facts” from undisclosable sources. Why, I can become a millionaire in the service of what I know instinctively is best for my country, even if my reporting is overly creative. What a deal!

Or, how about this one? An apology for an editorial oversight at the venerable Times: Creative Quoting Let me see if I understand what happened here. An editor, who is supposed to be correcting text, fitting a story to the allocated space and insuring the reporter is using verifiable facts; that editor facetiously puts in some of his/her own dialog as a quote from a military officer. Just a little bit of office humor to brighten up the type-setter’s day. It was supposed to be removed after everyone had a good chuckle and before the press run. Gimme a break.

Now, about the Jim Spencer piece. Did you notice how several paragraphs in, he mentions that Newsweek alleged that Karl Rove MIGHT have been the leak of Valerie Plame’s name. Can I say that Newsweek’s agenda is a little bit questionable since the Quran desecration fiasco turned out to be more innuendo and mirrors than fact last month?

Anyway, Newsweek suggested a Rove involvement. Nothing more. No facts. No quotes. No sources. But, by the end of the Spencer column, we’ve got the ungrounded assertion becoming the gospel according to St. Jim. So, Spencer quickly takes the leap of faith and concludes that the two NYT “journalists” are covering for the Bush White House.

Does that seem as illogical to you as it does to me? Would the decidedly liberal and unquestionably anti-administration NYT really go to the mat to protect Karl Rove? Hardly! It’s the scoop of the young 21st Century.

Isn’t it much more likely that the source is less credible, more left wing, and if disclosed, more improbable than that?

Enquiring minds really do want to know.