A while back folks on the right got all
snarky on Journal Sentinel
columnist Dan Bice because he had
the temerity to run with a story that state Sen. Robert Cowles feared a primary challenge if he defied Gov. Scott Walker on last year’s bill
stripping public employee collective bargaining rights.
Since Cowles denied the story, they
claimed, Bice should never have published the allegations.
Yet now the same standard isn’t
being applied to people commenting on Bice’s round of scoops on the John Doe
investigation surrounding Walker.
Specifically, conservative blogger Rick Esenberg has
alleged that Bice’s unnamed sources “are probably breaking the law” and
suggested that they are either lawyers or witnesses involved in the matter.
Bice has specifically said his
sources are
not breaking the law and at the same time stands by their credibility.
(Responding to Bice, Esenberg doubles
down on his assumption that they are directly involved in the case.)
Talk radio hosts Charlie Sykes, Jeff Wagner and Mark Belling
have all amplified the claim – again despite Bice’s outright denials – and used
it to drive a narrative that the Walker investigation is driven by partisan
bias.
Yet by their own standards, they
should presumably take Bice at his word and lay off the allegations about the
sources or alleged illegality of the leaks.
Any chance of that, do you think?
Of course, as has been noted often
and everywhere, Sykes et al. aren’t journalists. They’re editorialists with
very clear partisan loyalties and an agenda that hews to those loyalties. So
nothing, really, is surprising about any of this.
But let me be clear about something
else as well. I think the questions behind the assertions of Esenberg, Sykes et
al. are perfectly fair game.
Anonymous sourcing is an important
tool for reporters who want to get at unvarnished accounts of what’s going on.
The less it’s needed, the better, but it’s naïve to imagine that journalism could
do away with the practice entirely, even if some would have us try.
But whenever we do quote anonymous
sources – whether in talk radio, in the newspaper or here at Milwaukee Magazine – we can expect that
critically thinking readers will be naturally curious about who those sources
are and will be inclined to speculate on that question. And all the more so
when the speculators have a partisan axe to grind – as the guys guessing at Bice’s
sources all do.
Still, the ability for
self-contradiction is impressive.
In the comments at Esenberg’s blog,
Esenberg tells Bice (and readers)
What
I think is more serious, however, is the rampant speculation and salivation
over a criminal investigation by partisan bloggers.
Is rampant speculation, absent
concrete evidence, that officers of the court are “breaking the law” to leak
John Doe evidence also worth some of that outrage?
I asked both Sykes and Esenberg for
comment. Esenberg says he sees no connection or contradiction between the
assertion that Bice shouldn’t have written the Cowles story “and people who criticize
the fact that somebody leaked information from a confidential John Doe. (Incidentally,
I don’t think that I accused anyone of leaking. I only said that it was likely –
though not certain – that whoever leaked the information was violating a court
order.)”
Says Sykes: “I’m not sure I have
said the leaks went to Bice; I’ve said the Doe is leaking like a sieve … in
particular to Dem operatives and Team Barrett.”
Truth vs. Balance: National Public Radio has a new ethics policy that lays out, in terms
more specific than ever before, the difference between seeking “balance” and
seeking, as much as possible, the truth in a story.
New York University’s Jay Rosen praises
the change. Al Cross at
Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of
Kentucky takes
note as well.
Here are the money quotes from the
policy:
In
all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the
strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance
and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce
stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth.
At
all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our
primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the
truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information
they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of
controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We
strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and
represented fairly.
I also like the new approach and
think it’s a worthwhile aspiration for any journalist. That said – I also
understand why journalists often fall short and settle for balance. Sometimes
it’s because they’re afraid to rock the boat. But sometimes, it’s because they
– we – really just don’t know enough. And we know how much we don’t know.
But that hard reality doesn’t mean
that the quest for truth, not just tepid balance, is unworthy Policies like
this one should spur journalists to try to learn more about what they’re
reporting on, so that they can more consistently strive for that higher goal of
truth-telling.
What do you think?
*
Follow Pressroom on Facebook or on Twitter.
