Errors and Omissions

On Leaks

The Times had an interesting article on leaks this past Sunday. Without the unauthorized release of confidential or classified information, many important stories would not have come to light. Watergate and the recent domestic wiretapping program, to name two.

These stories may be the most valuable single reason the newspapers exist, though these types of stories take up five percent (less even?) of a typical newspaper. They're on page 1, or the National section, or occasionally the Business section. Without these stories being uncovered, the government or corporations have one fewer check on their power, and the citizenry has one fewer tool to manage these institutions.

At the same time, leaks have significant problems.

One, they're anonymous. Without being publicly cited, the reader has no ability to assess the credibility of the source. He/she is completely at the mercy of the reporter (who has reason to be credulous) and the editor--who's supposed to be the conscience of the reader but who is human too and can overlook conflicts and biases inherent in anonymous sourcing; e.g., Judith Miller.

Two, the leaker leaks for a reason, and not at random. It's dangerous to leak--certainly against the policies and practices of an organization, even illegal in some cases. Thus no one would do it without a compelling reason. Perhaps the leaker is looking to curry favor with the reporter for future use, perhaps to exact revenge on an enemy (hello Scooter Libby). Perhaps even to serve higher moral or ethical purposes.

The problem is that none of these motives is apparent to the reader. And without knowledge of these motives, the reader cannot make an independent judgment of whether the information is distorted, spun, or even untrue.

Ah, well. We need them, but don't really like them. I guess that's the point of the article.

New York Times
Scooter Libby
bias
leaks
anonymous sources

posted by Unknown @ 5/04/2006 08:35:00 AM