Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
But you can't be confident you got an accurate picture of what's going on in the White House from that article. With a bunch of unattributed gossip, you almost certainly didn't, but you were given no information to deduce who was trying to influence your opinion to their view of events.
If the choices are reprinting Kellyanne Conway's background dirt and Bannon's gossip given to you off the record, Huckabee propaganda, or nothing, then news outlets should do nothing. There's honestly no real qualitative difference between Conway off the record and Huckabee/Spicer at the podium, it's just bull**** with a different pretense.
OBVIOUSLY if Conway is saying, hey, here's a scoop, off the record, if it comes from me I'll be fired, then perhaps they should print it anonymously sourced. Hard to say. CNN owes it to its readers to justify why they gave anonymity. It's far more likely these people like Conway and Bannon are super powerful highly paid/experienced media spin agents just plying anonymity because it's convenient and more useful for them, and CNN is acquiescing in exchange for access/scoops. That's decidedly a bad journalism practice; that's how the media gets gamed doing the interests and bidding of the powerful and spreading propaganda uncritically.
If your beat is the White House, you have contacts and sources. By past history you could be able to tell with a pretty good degree of certainty whether their information was credible. Finding out what's happening in the white house in response to Don Jr. is a totally reasonable assignment.
Your sources wouldn't talk to you at all if you insisted upon using their identities. Thus there is no story except for Sarah's propaganda. Maybe someday that's all we'll be able to get. Especially if people on both political sides are united in making that happen.
Meantime, you shouldn't conflate "off the record" with anonymous statements. Stuff that is off the record is agreed upon not to be reported.