Errors and Omissions

On Sources

OK, let's talk about sources for a minute. When journalists preach objectivity, the first area to scrutinize is the source of a story.

A fact: people who don't have something to gain from a journalist do not make themselves available as sources. It takes time and energy and can be risky to career and reputation.

A source may very well believe that a wrong has been committed and he/she is obligated to bring that to light. Or the source feels he/she has been victimized and seeks redress or revenge.

A source may have more selfish objectives, such as discrediting another party (see: Scooter Libby and Joseph Wilson) or bringing favorable light on themselves.

In any event, by having a strong motive to speak out for some purpose means that a source is inherently biased.

A journalist may respond, "but we don't rely on a single source. We get corroborating sources, seek out opposing views, have editors and colleagues review what we've written. This process leaches out any subjectivity and leaves only facts."

OK, fine. But we all know, don't we, that the primary source for a story shapes it? The other sources almost never cause the story to veer away from that basic shape?

Coming soon: the tyranny of the anonymous source, and why it may be essential anyway.

posted by Unknown @ 4/28/2006 08:15:00 PM