{"id":989,"date":"2007-06-29T10:09:45","date_gmt":"2007-06-29T16:09:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php\/index.php\/2007\/06\/29\/anonymous-sources-part-ii-say-what\/"},"modified":"2007-07-01T12:31:24","modified_gmt":"2007-07-01T18:31:24","slug":"anonymous-sources-part-ii-say-what","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=989","title":{"rendered":"Anonymous Sources, Part II – Say What?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is Part II of a three\u00a0part series.\u00a0 Part I appeared this past Wednesday<\/a>.<\/p>\n

———-\u00a0<\/p>\n

Remember the Society for Professional Journalists’ “Code of Ethics”?\u00a0<\/p>\n

It says reporters should:<\/p>\n

\u2014 Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While the Minnesota Monitor’s self-published code of ethics is largely cribbed nearly verbatim from the SPJ’s code, they curiously edit this commandment:<\/p>\n

* Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s look into this.<\/p>\n

———-<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, I noted<\/a> that when pressed by Michael Brodkorb in the Monitor thread comment section, Fecke responded by changing two words – adding the word “reportedly” to quotes by Minnesota GOP chairman Ron Carey and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (DFL).\u00a0\u00a0 As I noted at the end of Wednesday’s installment, it’s almost a piddling thing – a class E misdemeanor among blogging ethics violations (and yes, I’m highly<\/em>\u00a0 and ironically aware the term “blogging ethics” is not unanalogous to “Bolivian jurisprudence” or “JB Doubtless’ subtle shades of metaphor”).\u00a0 It’s hardly the stuff that scuppers a journalistic endeavor’s credibility.\u00a0<\/p>\n

By itself.<\/p>\n

We’ll come back to that.<\/p>\n

———-<\/p>\n

In the comment thread on Monday’s post at Minnesota Monitor,\u00a0Michael Brodkorb asked<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Jeff:You have a direct quote from the Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey in your post:<\/p>\n

“…GOP chair Ron Carey saying there is a ’90 percent probability’ of a change…”<\/p>\n

Did you interview Chairman Carey?\u00a0 Did he give you the “90 percent probability” quote?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Fecke responded<\/a>\u00a0(with emphasis added by me):<\/p>\n

\u00a0I’m not going to clarify every word in every story I write for you.\u00a0 Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources<\/strong>…and maybe there’s another option you haven’t thought of.\u00a0 Regardless, I’m not going to get sucked in to what’s clearly a case of you hyperanalyzing every word I write to see if you can find some reason that what I wrote is technically inaccurate, whether or not a reasonable person would find it so.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, let’s hold on right there.<\/p>\n

“Maybe” one interviews someone, and “maybe” one gets the quote elsewhere?\u00a0 Would, as Jeff alludes, a “reasonable person” find that to be a mere technicality?<\/p>\n

No.\u00a0 Indeed, the sources a journalist, or “journalist”, uses are critical to establishing the reader\/viewer’s sense of the story’s credibility.\u00a0 Being able to point to a source with reasonable knowledge of the details of a story is a key part of reporting.\u00a0 Remember – a reporter (as opposed to a columnist) is as a general rule not supposed to be <\/em>the story, or be part of <\/em>the story; they are supposed to relate <\/em>the story to the reader.<\/p>\n

Part of the job is relating facts, quotes and information\u00a0–\u00a0with which the reader is probably unfamiliar – to the reader in a way that tells the story clearly and credibly<\/em>.\u00a0 \u00a0One does this by telling the reader the source <\/em>of the assertions in one’s story.\u00a0\u00a0When the reader knows the source of something – a fact, a quote, an assertion – the can gauge the credibility of the reporter’s story-telling accordingly.\u00a0 “The Senator told me in a one-on-one interview…”, “I read on a bathroom wall that…”, “according to an Associated Press report of the event…”, “…a number of left-leaning blogs report…”, and “highly-placed sources within the company\u00a0and familiar with its accounting procedures” \u00a0are all\u00a0ways of sourcing a quote in ways that tell a reader how much credence to lend the quotes.<\/p>\n

\u00a0It’s one of the reasons journalists are supposed to shy away from anonymous sources (the Society of Professional Journalists<\/a> and the Minnesota Monitor’s<\/a> codes of ethics enshrine this principle); without knowledge of who the sources are and the baggage, grinding-axes and backstory they bring, the reader can’t get a complete picture of the story.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Read the original piece Jeff posted before making the corrections<\/a> – adding the word “reportedly” twice.\u00a0\u00a0 I’m going to pull out a few pieces – some quotes from Fecke’s original piece.<\/p>\n

Jeff clearly understands the idea of sourcing; he clearly lists the source of one quote:<\/p>\n

Leslie Sandberg, communications director for the Mike Ciresi campaign, issued a statement to Minnesota Monitor<\/strong> saying, “We’re going to abide by the endorsement, and our campaign looks forward to having many supporters show up whether the caucuses are held in February or March.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See how it works?\u00a0 Sandberg – Mike Hatch’s former flak – sent the Monitor a statement.\u00a0 Simple, clear, and establishes the credibility of the information Fecke has just presented.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Two more quotes:<\/p>\n

Jess McIntosh, communications director for the Franken campaign, was equally positive. “While we can’t believe that no one has come up with a better name than `Super-Duper Tuesday,’ we’re glad Minnesotans may be able to be a part of it. And we’re excited about increased participation in the caucuses.” …The Bob Olson campaign did not immediately have an official statement, but campaign manager Eric Mitchell said that the move was “good for Minnesotans,” and that it would hopefully increase participation in the caucuses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So how did Jeff hear from Jess McIntosh and\/or Eric Mitchell?\u00a0 A statement?\u00a0 An interview?\u00a0 A drunken confession after hours at the Lexington?<\/p>\n

Well, no matter.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The next quote is from Minnesota GOP chairman Ron Carey:<\/p>\n

While the state has not officially moved the caucus date, both DFL and Minnesota GOP leaders have indicated support for the switch, with GOP chair Ron Carey saying there is a “90 percent probability” of a change, and the DFL already giving preliminary approval to the plan.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

“Ron Carey saying”.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What would a reader – that putative “reasonable person” that Fecke alluded to above – assume was the source of that quote?\u00a0 “Say[ing]” implies a “verbal statement” – arguably insinuating that the reporter got this quote directly from Ron Carey, via an interview, a phone conversation, an email – some <\/em>direct communication.<\/p>\n

I contacted Ron Carey’s office on Wednesday afternoon.\u00a0 “To the best of my knowledge, Ron has never talked with [Jeff] Fecke about the caucuses”, said Mark Drake, Carey’s press contact.\u00a0 Furthermore, according to Drake this quotation was not part of any statement issued by anyone in Carey’s office.<\/p>\n

Which was, of course, what Michael Brodkorb told Fecke<\/a> in the original Monitor article’s comment thread:<\/p>\n

I called the Republican Party of Minnesota this morning and spoke with the Party’s communications director, Mark Drake.\u00a0 I asked Mr. Drake if Chairman Carey did an interview with Minnesota Monitor yesterday.\u00a0 He replied that Chairman Carey did not do an interview with Minnesota Monitor, nor was an interview requested.<\/p>\n

If you didn’t interview Chairman Carey, how did you get the quote for your story?\u00a0 According to numerous attendees at yesterday’s meeting of representatives of the major political parties and Secretary Ritchie, you nor a representative of Minnesota Monitor were present at the meeting.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Fecke responded<\/a>:<\/p>\n

I’ve added one word, twice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As we noted Wednesday, that word was “reportedly”.\u00a0 It changed the quote to “…with GOP chair Ron Carey reportedly<\/font> saying there is a “90 percent probability” of a change…”.\u00a0 The change was made without telling the readers.<\/p>\n

What it meant was that while Fecke’s original story was very vague about the actual source of Carey’s quote, the revision was clearer; Fecke had gotten the quote from some indirect source.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Are one’s sources direct, or are they indirect?\u00a0 It can make a difference in the sort of credibility a reader assigns to a reporter’s writing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It’s not an academic distinction.\u00a0 Compare and contrast:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
    “Billy said Annie is a poopyhead”<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
    “Billy reportedly said Annie is a poopyhead”<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    One is direct, authoritative, to-the-chase, and implies that one has gotten the information – the quote<\/em> – “straight from the horse’s mouth”.\u00a0 The other adds a level of plausible deniability, as if to say “I don’t know for sure, <\/em>but this is what I’ve heard…”.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics enjoins a reporter (emphasis added)\u00a0to “Make certain<\/strong> that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent<\/strong>. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.”<\/p>\n

    So if Carey’s quote didn’t come from a face-to-face interview, and it didn’t come from a statement, where did <\/em>the statement come from?<\/p>\n

    Or, as Fecke’s un-acknowledged correction put it, what is <\/em>the quote’s “reported” source?\u00a0 As this is published, an email to Fecke asking for clarification remains unanswered.<\/p>\n

    ———-<\/p>\n

    Before we move on to Monday’s installment, let’s look at another quote.\u00a0 It was in a May 17 piece by Fecke<\/a>, quoting Senator Norm Coleman’s lambasting of Attorney General Gonzalez.\u00a0 The quote:<\/p>\n

    \n

    “\u2019I don’t have confidence in Gonzales,\u2019 Coleman said, adding, \u2018I would hope that the attorney general understands that the department is suffering right now, and he does the right thing, and that is allows the president to provide new leadership.\u2019\u201d<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    “Coleman said”.\u00a0 Not “Coleman reportedly said”.\u00a0 Not “Coleman\u00a0said in a\u00a0statement supplied to the Monitor”, or “Coleman related to an acquaintance during a drunken night of hold-em and Ten Years After videos”.\u00a0 “Coleman said”.\u00a0 Said to whom?\u00a0 If one is a journalist, the implication is “to me”, unless you say otherwise.\u00a0 (I’ve taken a screen shot, as of Wednesday, June 27 at 5PM, showing the quote in its original form).\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Did Fecke interview Senator Coleman?\u00a0 A reliable source tells me\u00a0the\u00a0 Senator’s quote occurred during a telephone press conference, and that no Monitor staff were present at press conference conference at all.<\/p>\n

    Just to confirm, I emailed Robin Marty, the Monitor’s managing editor.\u00a0 She had not been\u00a0involved in setting up any interviews with the Senator.\u00a0 As this is published, an email to Fecke asking for clarification remains unanswered.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n

    “Coleman said”.\u00a0 To whom?\u00a0 When?<\/p>\n

    We’ll discuss that in the next installment, Part III, Monday morning.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This is Part II of a three\u00a0part series.\u00a0 Part I appeared this past Wednesday. ———-\u00a0 Remember the Society for Professional Journalists’ “Code of Ethics”?\u00a0 It says reporters should: \u2014 Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-989","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogs","category-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/989","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=989"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/989\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=989"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=989"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=989"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}