John Hamer on Media Shield Bill |
| Blooker Comments - Future of Journalism | |||
|
OurBlook interview with John Hamer, executive director of the Washington News Council. JH: It is valuable to have protections for confidential sources of important information that the public deserves and needs to know, IF those sources are genuinely in jeopardy of serious repercussions such as job loss or demotion, financial harm or physical threat. However, if national security is clearly at stake, there should be no such protections. JH: The danger is that confidential sources may have ulterior motives that are not apparent or revealed to journalists who are seeking a "good story" and often hoping to win journalism prizes. Some sources may manipulate journalists and use them for their own purposes. Too many journalists are naive or inexperienced and easily manipulated. With the declining number of experienced editors and the deadline pressures of online media, this problem is exacerbated. JH: It's of major importance to journalists, but only moderate importance to most members of the public. Many people already believe journalists are inaccurate, sloppy, lazy, biased, sensationalistic and sometimes unethical. That's why public trust in the news media is at all-time low levels. (See latest Gallup, Pew and Sacred Heart national survey results.) Certainly the public supports good investigative journalism to reveal misconduct among government, business, nonprofits, academia, sports, law enforcement and other institutions. But the public is so mistrustful of the media that they take major media "exposes" with a large grain of salt ... or at least they should. JH: No, not directly. But we have had some formal written complaints about media stories that were at least partly based on confidential sources. King County Sheriff Sue Rahr's complaint against the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which was upheld by the News Council at a 2006 WNC public hearing, was one example. JH: It's not odd, exactly. But it's an indication of the desperation among many mainstream media journalists who still think their sweeping investigative reports are the most important thing they do. They long for the days of Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate, which left a lasting legacy on American journalism. Too many journalists today still want to "take down" somebody or some institution and win a Pulitzer Prize for doing it. Meanwhile, they may neglect the positive stories that can reinforce constructive activities that really benefit their communities. JH: This proves my point above .. that journalists can be easily misled by sources with ulterior motives. Witness the CBS Dan Rather/Mary Mapes stories about George W. Bush. Witness the New York Times stories about John McCain's supposed affair with a lobbyist. Witness the "Yes Men" phony press conference at the National Press Club! Journalists need to be much more skeptical of confidential sources' motives ... and even consider laying out those motives in public. In retrospect, even "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) had ulterior motives because he had been passed over to head the FBI after J. Edgar Hoover's death. Should the Washington Post have told its readers that fact? Would it have made readers think any differently about the Watergate stories?
|
| Related Items |
|---|