Yesterday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein cautioned the American public about tales told by anonymous sources.
I checked numerous US news outlets and all of them covered Rosenstein’s statement the same way. How bizarre for him to come out with such a cryptic statement! What on Earth did he mean? Surely, a very big shoe must be about to drop. Why else would he make such an offbeat remark about good old anonymous sources?
The public repeated what the TV talkers said and waited anxiously for something to be revealed.
Here’s what’s truly weird. The public wouldn’t know, but any journalist who observes professional standards would have to know that attribution is a must. Not long ago, a story based on anonymous sources was considered rumor, gossip, or fiction, not real news.
In the early 1970s, Woodward and Bernstein broke the taboo against anonymous sources in their reporting on Watergate and it was controversial. ‘Deep Throat’ was essential to the story and there was no way around that.
This short piece on Journalism Ethics and the Washington Post’s decision to break their own rule on anonymous sources is a quick, easy, and enjoyable read.
www.newseum.org/…
The exception that the paper made was a one-off. It took decades of slipping standards for anonymous sources to become almost the norm that they are today. it’s hard to imagine how any journalist today would find Rosenstein's statement unusual:
"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials.”
Coincidentally, It just so happened that a tale about Rosenstein told by anonymous sources appeared this morning. Did the public exercise caution? Hell, no. The story said that Rosenstein might recuse himself from Mueller’s investigation throwing him to the mad dogs in the White House. Every paid blogger and Twitter tweeter was thrilled by the idea and eager to spread the bad news.
What was the conflict of interest in the matter? Trump howled about the Deputy AG who told him to fire Comey and ended up investigating him for it. How could that put Rosenstein in the line of fire when Trump had previously stated that he fired Comey for Russia reasons, not the concerns outlined in Rosenstein’s memo?
The recusal story made no sense but there was no questioning it.
Let me repeat, there was no questioning it.
That’s right. There was no questioning it.
This is the problem at the heart of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Americans believe whatever they read on the internet or see on TV. Why the public would become attached to a blatantly untrue story in the first place is a mystery to me. I doubt that Rosenstein himself can change anyone’s mind about the non-recusal.
Note: the WaPo link is dead but the story appears in a number of other papers with WaPo referenced in the byline. Like this one:
www.mysanantonio.com/...