« On The Cooler Shades Of Escape | Main | Indeed, Socrates »

February 11, 2007

Just Say No

By Ankush

Sigh.  You know, these intelligence briefings -- in which the government makes all sorts of one-sided claims for which the people involved shouldn't be granted anonymity -- don't need to proceed with the people actually getting anonymity.

The whole thing is a perverse consequence of the competitive nature of journalism: It can produce virtually indistinguishable pack reporting. Everyone is afraid of being scooped, so unless the official at issue agrees to be named or all of the reporters refuse to attend the briefing, everyone is going to agree to the rules put forth by the government.

The Times' report on today's briefing in Baghdad on Iran's alleged involvement in supplying EFPs to Shiite militias suggests that there was something of a tussle between the reporters and military briefers about the ground rules:  "During the briefing, the senior United States military officials were repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on anonymity in such an important matter affecting the security of American and Iraqi troops."

So what's the solution?  Everyone agrees not to attend the briefing unless the officials agree to be named, and they all leave.  (This is actually less difficult than it sounds in Baghdad, since there are so few Western news organizations operating there at this point.) Unfortunately, and here we run into a collective action problem, there's no way to guarantee someone won't defect, go to the military to get the information, and then have the scoop that everyone else fears they're going to miss out on.

I'm not sure what a realistic remedy here is, but it would be nice -- and good for us all -- if, when dealing with serious matters like this, reporters recognized the collective bargaining power and leverage that they actually have and refused to accept objectionable ground rules. (If the government didn't need them to report on this stuff, they wouldn't conduct the briefings.)  Instead, the reporters are (fairly easily) strong-armed into doing exactly what the government wants them to do.

February 11, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Look at the absolute piece of shit that the Washington Post is running as its main Sunday headline, “Iran Sending Explosives to Extremist Groups in Iraq, Officials Say”. Look at the ironclad foundation for this claim (emphasis added):

“Iran is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces,” said a senior defense official in Baghdad, who like the two other officials spoke on condition of anonymity. He added that Iran is the only country in the region that produces these weapons.

Anybody else get a sense of deja vu from this stenography?

Enough is fucking enough.

I live in the DC area, and after their role in the Iraq disaster I won’t spend a nickel on the goddam WaPo, and I urge everybody I know who subscribes to it (a dwindling number) to cancel their subscriptions. I hope others start doing the same. There’s no reason why Pravda on the Potomac needs to survive if it’s going to spread this kind of disinfo. Its reputation for quality left long ago. Now it’s not even a minimally responsible organization.

Posted by: sglover | Feb 11, 2007 6:36:13 PM

Why, in a case like this, does it matter if the briefers are granted anonymity? The journalists should try to determine how reliable the briefers are in such matters, but publishing the names probably doesn't matter much.

More striking to me was the lack of checking with outside experts on the claims made. Maybe that will come later; these were quickly filed stories. The evidence requires trusting the intelligence agencies involved, in any case.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 11, 2007 6:47:53 PM

First question, why would military demand anonymity from reporters during a briefing? I'm sorry, are we mixing our terms here? I thought anonymity was something people who were going out on a limb were given to share important information that, if given openly, would endanger in some way, the person giving it. Instead, now we have anonymous briefings?

What's next, "Today two dudes from some government office said nuclear war with Iran starts tomorrow."?

We always talk about how spinless legislators are in not wanting to hurt their chances for re-election (or that big donation) and we have a press corp that is at least as compromised and corrupt.

I don't get it. This is an institution we're supposed to protect? The media (or far too much if it) has simply become another government office propagandizing.

Posted by: ice weasel | Feb 11, 2007 7:09:06 PM

Weasel, why does it matter to you if they remain unnamed? How does it change how you assess the story?

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 11, 2007 7:21:46 PM

It is interesting that people giving briefings are allowed anonymity. I think this is just in keeping with the Bush Administration's regular practices. Remember, they will classify anything they wish. They have refused FOIA requests. They've long established the habit of speaking on condition of anonymity even when talking about public information.

The Bush admin is very serious about a total lack of personal accountability. Very few people have been held accountable for anything that has happened. This seems to be a deliberate strategy on their part, of which speaking on condition of anonymity is just a part.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 11, 2007 7:30:00 PM

Every reporter there probably knew who the briefers were, or could easily find out. If their accountability becomes an issue, they'll get outed. I don't think lack of accountability is the reason for seeking anonymity for a briefing. People involved with gathering intelligence typically prefer anonymity for reasons related to their ability to continue their work effectively. This is nothing new. I still wonder why it matters so much.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 11, 2007 7:43:43 PM

Sanpete,

If I don't know who exactly is promulgating this story, I can't decide if it has merit or if it's merely US government propaganda.

As it is, I assume the story isn't true unless someone can prove it's true.

Posted by: tweez | Feb 11, 2007 8:42:31 PM

I agree with those who are unhappy with the anonymity. These unnamed officials are laying out pieces of evidence that build toward a casus belli, but these "defense officials" can't find a public affairs officer whose name can be used in the open to make the case? What, they want to be able to deny having made these accusations against Iran? The anonymity of the officials keeps the cat in the box, alive and dead at the same time?

The press doesn't have to be a party to this. Journalists probably will continue to fall for it since they're all greedy for anything that seems like a scoop, but it would be nice if they followed up with more skeptical analysis.

Posted by: Jackmormon | Feb 11, 2007 9:22:21 PM

Tweez, it seems the more proper assumption would be that you just don't know, not that the story is false. Since we already know the briefers were US government employees, why would it matter what their names are in determining whether the story is just government propaganda?

these "defense officials" can't find a public affairs officer whose name can be used in the open to make the case?

I doubt that would be a problem, but finding one who's an expert on the issues involved, and knows exactly what not to reveal, might be a problem. If the officials deny having said what they said, all the reporters there will know it, and in important cases that is considered grounds for voiding anonymity. Really, what important thing is at stake in the anonymity in this case? Seems to me a side issue. Skeptical analysis is more important. Hopefully we'll get some.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 11, 2007 9:33:05 PM

There is an easy solution for a journalist who doesn't want to grant anonymity but who also doesn't want to be scooped. He can go along and promise anonymity like everyone else and then leak the names of the briefers to another jouralist on the condition that he not be named the source of the leaked names of the briefers.

If the Army isn't acting in good faith, neither should journalists. It is time to play some fucking hardball with these warmongering bastards, and any journalist too cowardly to do so is complicit in the deaths that result from the coming war with Iran.

Posted by: Jay | Feb 11, 2007 9:41:39 PM

People involved with gathering intelligence typically prefer anonymity for reasons related to their ability to continue their work effectively.

People who give briefings are not actively involved in gathering intelligence; as you said, their identity is known, and they can't rely upon any promises from the reporters to never reveal their identity.

If their accountability becomes an issue, they'll get outed.

That's a faith statement, whereas my contention that the Bush administration is more secretive than its predecessors, even when discussing public information, is documented. We can quibble over whether demanding anonymity for briefers is indicative of avoiding accountibility or not. But this is not normal practice; at the beginning of the Iraq War briefings were televised. Same with the Gulf War and the Bosnian bombing campaign and Afghanistan. It wasn't until Iraq started going to hell that the identity of these people started to be kept a secret.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 11, 2007 9:58:40 PM

If their accountability becomes an issue, they'll get outed.

When has this ever happened?

Posted by: Constantine | Feb 11, 2007 10:00:21 PM

If the Army isn't acting in good faith, neither should journalists. It is time to play some fucking hardball with these warmongering bastards, and any journalist too cowardly to do so is complicit in the deaths that result from the coming war with Iran.

I like it. Otherwise, it's just Game Theory 101 and we're screwed.

Now, we just need to find a journalist with some balls... ah, crap.

Posted by: scarshapedstar | Feb 11, 2007 10:13:02 PM

Game theory suggests several possible solutions. Without going into the technical details, the reporters should be "betrayed" by their editors. Under the current rules of journalistic practice, the reporters have to tell their editors, who the briefers were. The editors can add that information to the story.

A paper, whose editors don't disclose the information, has missed the scoop -- an editor defecting has just the opposite of the competitive effect of a reporter defecting. And, the editors are not available for intimidation.

After that, the reporters can agree to anything, but are untrustworthy. And, the editors can instruct reporters to get the story from their colleagues, and even provide bribes. Or, the editor can make up a policy, which the reporters can articulate; a reporter with an editor's policy, is trustworthy as far as the editor's policy permits, but an editor's policy is not negotiable by the reporter.

Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Feb 11, 2007 10:47:01 PM

Stephen, one of the people giving the briefing was explicitly said to be allowed to speak only anonymously because of his intelligence work. Perhaps it isn't only to avoid harm to his work; it may also be that there are other reasons. When Imperial Hubris came out, the author had to remain anonymous, we were told, because of his intelligence work, even though he cleared the book with superiors. I don't know about the other two briefers. If the goal is to avoid accountability, they should just issue an anonymous press release, because this method obviously doesn't fully protect them.

I have read of cases of sources being outed when they denied what they said anonymously, on the grounds that they had used bad faith in getting the promise of anonymity. I don't recall which cases these were, Constantine, but anyone who follows media issues could probably recall some examples for us. The principle of good faith seems clear enough, anyway.

Even if the goal were to avoid responsibility, and this were a good method to do it, I still wonder how much difference it makes. You have to trust them either way. We've been misled by people who didn't claim anonymity as often as by those who did, I'd imagine.

I don't claim that the Bush Administration isn't more secretive in general. I think they are. I claim that there's nothing new about intelligence briefings with anonymous briefers. If it were unique to the Bush Administration, the articles would have noted that, since the anonymity was an issue.

Still seems a side issue to me, as it apparently does to the press as well.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 11, 2007 10:58:55 PM

Stephen, one of the people giving the briefing was explicitly said to be allowed to speak only anonymously because of his intelligence work.

Oops, missed that. Oh well, my argument sounded good in my head.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 12, 2007 12:25:23 AM

Yes, I'm sure it was all done to protect intelligence assets. It's not like this administration has a history of frivolously demanding off-the-record status on briefings.

Posted by: Royko | Feb 12, 2007 12:54:49 AM

there's no way to guarantee someone won't defect, go to the military to get the information, and then have the scoop that everyone else fears they're going to miss out on.

And Michael Gordon was obviously leaked some juice in advance of the briefing for just that purpose: divide, obscure and conquer.

As Robert Fisk said, you should keep a running count of 'officials say' and varients thereof when reading the US press.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 12, 2007 1:34:03 AM

I think the revelation will come when reporters realize that letting someone else print propaganda first isn't actually being "scooped," as such.

Posted by: Kimmitt | Feb 12, 2007 1:57:00 PM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 10:41:39 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.