Anonymous Sources

Granddaddy Long Legs ^

[cchandler]

It appears the editors at The New York Times have finally taught their reporters how to accurately disclose an anonymous source's connection to a subject. In a front page, above-the-fold article titled Inquiry on Clinton Official Ends With Accusations of Cover-Up, the writers described the source this way:

A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known.

This is a step in the right direction. I'm just wondering why they only tend to acknowledge a source's partisanship when that person is attacking a Democrat?

Question: Throughout the NYT's near constant Bush-bashing, how often do you read a line like one of these:

• "Information about the domestic wiretapping was given to the Times by a disgruntled former NSA employee who is personally opposed to Bush's foreign policy,"

• "Information about the Fitzgerald probe came from Democrat sympathizers who wanted their criticisms of the Bush administration to be known.

• "The Republican Congressman's monetary connection with Abramoff was confirmed by a Democrat congressional staffer who wanted to inflict political damage to the opposition."

  Answer: Never.

  And I suspect that this newfound commitment to inform the readership of the source's biases will fade away as soon as a Republican is under fire. They'll go right back to describing an anonymous source as "someone close to the investigation", or "a high ranking government official".....

[So Cal Rocket]

Speaking of "anonymous sources" and how they are treated by the NYTimes... get a load of this:

These are two quotes from the same article in the NYT regarding the leadup to the Alito hearings:

First we read that “two of Judge Alito’s supporters who participated in the murder boards, speaking about the confidential sessions on condition of anonymity for fear of White House reprisals...”

Farther down the page we read of “two Democratic aides briefed on his meeting with Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York... The aides, speaking anonymously because the meeting was private... ”

Reprisals, by the way, is a loaded word in the Times lexicon. Here are some of the other parties meting out reprisals in the paper’s news columns over the course of the last month: the Communist Chinese government, Iraqi insurgents, New Jersey gang members, French police, and the Islamist murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. In so many words, then, the Republicans are thugs, the Democrats gentlemen. Nice.

[cchandler]

Excellent research.

I've always tried to explain to my liberal friends that liberal media bias is not created in shady, smoke-filled rooms full of editors. It exists in the subtle, printed suggestions that one party is mianstream and good, and that the other is sectarian and suspect.