Note - I’ve left this piece, and the comments section, open for all as I would love to hear any media-related stories y’all may have. Thanks1
Back when I was a reporter – Hey, you damn kid, get off my lawn!! – leaks, tips, anonymous sources, off-the-record, and background information were treated with wary respect.
Leaks and tips had to be confirmed by a second unrelated source, either a person or documents or elsewise. One did not run with “Mayoral candidate likes wearing onesies and getting spanked” types of stories without at least a bit of corroboration.
With the recent arrest of the guardsman for leaking sensitive information (how a 21-year-old reservist even gets near that kind of info is a matter for another time) on many minds, it may behoove us at how certain media practices should be done.
The classic leak – This is pretty much Deep Throat from Watergate. Like spies, leakers can have many motivations to reveal inside and/or confidential information. They may think it’s the right thing to do or they may be seeking revenge or have any number of other reasons. In the case of Watergate, Mark Felt – Deep Throat and the number 2 guy at the FBI - was passed over by Richard Nixon twice for elevation to replace J. Edgar Hoover as director. He was not happy about that (note – there are many other possible reasons for Watergate but, again, that may be for a different time) and there was unquestionably a personal motivation behind Felt’s actions but since the information panned out that did not matter.
Woodward and Bernstein simply did not print whatever Felt said – they worked to independently confirm as much as they could.
The modern leak - Now reporters do not have to confirm leaked “information.” Much, mostly, all right pretty much all except the spelling of his name of the information leaked out about Donald Trump while he was president was false. No pee tape, no Russian collusion, no, again, anything and yet the sordid tale still managed to not only get into the papers but it led to a number of awards and TV spots and raises and even a Pulitzer or two.
An aside on the Pulitzer – it used to matter, now it is just major mainstream media folks giving awards to their friends – for example, the Washington Post received 21 Pulitzers between 1917 and 2000; it has received 49 since.
Currently, the personal and political motivations have clearly overtaken the “doing the right thing” concept when it comes to leaks. The deluge of anti-Trump leaks were specifically and clearly intended to damage his presidency and when the leakers realized they could literally say anything – no confirmation and unrelated second source required anymore because Trump was bad - and see it in print shortly thereafter the race was on and DC media types became mere stenographers for the Deep State.
While it fills their rice bowl, journalists (not reporters) do not like to be reminded that they are willing pawns in the fraud machine that is the media today – hence their current dislike of people like Edward Snowden, Juilan Assange, and anyone else who leaks information that was not pre-approved for leaking for political advantage.
Glen Greenwald sums up this situation nicely here:
https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1647240952128438272
Tips are a bit different and usually come in the form of “hey, you may want to check out X.” They involve far less upfront information but still allow the tipster to plant the seed of a story without exposing themselves to much potential blowback.
Tips can also be simpler as in the case of “Josephine Schmoe is getting arrested about 11 a.m. today.” But even that time honored “heads up” has been bastardized and taken advantage of by certain politically active government agencies, hence various news agencies having so much information on Jack Teixeira so quickly like getting video of the actual arrest and being able to swamp the airwaves with reports of his creepy gamer/incel lifestyle. In this case, the tip was not to be helpful but an attempt to ensure Teixeira’s guilt in the mind of the public.
Anonymous sources come in many flavors and are not bad things. From the truly anonymous “letter over the transom,” or, today, the “call from a burner phone,” to sitting down at some out of the way restaurant with to talk in detail, the key, again, is corroboration. And as to their anonymity, the reporter and editor must know who they are and confirm that they could possibly have access to the information they claim to know.
Again, now it seems that anyone who gets a government paycheck can call up a reporter and, again, see it in print shortly thereafter. That being said, the reporter and editor still do know who the person is, so just because it says the word “anonymous” in the paper does not automatically mean the information is false.
Using sources who wish to remain anonymous is always tricky and were used very sparingly in the past. Sadly, that standard no longer applies.
As usual, Yes, Prime Minister cuts through the fog and explains exactly why certain leaks are not only tolerated but approved of and others, well, not so much:
If you do not care to watch the whole thing, shame on you, but here the main point anyway:
“Oh, that's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.”
Off-the-record is information that is kind of a combination between a leak and a tip, often simply filling in blanks and delving into the nuance of the situation from a person who is in a position to know the lay of the land.
Again, it is publicly anonymous but, unlike an anonymous source, is never directly quoted in a story.
Background information is just that – background. It is usually from a long-term contact, accurate but crucial, and used to add color to a story and to confirm information. It can range from “did you know X drinks 12 cups of coffee a day?” to an explanation of the intricacies of an agency’s accounting system.
With all that grey area to play around in, it is somewhat surprising that only in the past decade or so that it’s become such a purposeful playground for political pythons. The leaks, etc. occurring now do not start from a “I wonder if the world should know about this?” but instead start with a “how can I make the world believe something I want it to believe no matter if is true or false?”
One of the most fascinating aspects of this culture – always in the background but now turbocharged into the frontal lobes of every human on the planet – is that everyone knows that leaks occur, that stories are planted because they have done it themselves, and yet they still believe what they read and take it for the gospel truth, especially if it confirms their preconceived political notions.
Austrian polemicist Karl Kraus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kraus_(writer) – said about a century ago something that is even more true today:
“How is the world ruled and led to war? Diplomats lie to journalists and believe these lies when they see them in print.”
To end on a cheerier media-related note, please find this description of who reads the papers. Again, most political answers can be found on Yes, Prime Minister:
Thanks again for subscribing!