SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
May 18, 2015
In his brilliant analysis in Columbia Journalism Review (3/15/15) of establishment media reaction to Seymour Hersh's re-examination of the killing of Osama bin Laden (London Review of Books, 5/21/15), the Guardian's Trevor Timm notes that one of the put-downs hurled at Hersh to discredit his story is "off the rails"-as in, "In recent years, however, Hersh has appeared increasingly to have gone off the rails," as Max Fisher put it in his Vox broadside (5/11/15).
It's an odd choice of metaphor. Rails, after all, are meant to keep a vehicle on a predetermined track. It's not much of compliment to compare a journalist to a smoothly operating train, always showing up at the official stations.
Am I reading too much into a cliche? Consider the reaction to Hersh's use of anonymous sources that Timm describes:
It has been rich watching journalists fall over each other to see who can more vehemently criticize Hersh's use of anonymous sources, despite the fact that using anonymous sources is a tried-and-true Washington ritual that receives almost no criticism in day-to-day reporting. Banal sound bites are regularly printed on the front pages without names attached, and entire press conferences are held every day with "senior government officials" who refuse to be named....
According to the excellent Twitter account @NYTAnon, the Times published at least 20 stories relying on anonymous sources in the five days after the Hersh story went online Sunday night, on topics ranging from new Facebook features to strife among Democrats over the stalled trade agreement to Cablevision dropping its bid for the Daily News. Imagine if reporters aimed a tenth of the criticism at those stories that they aimed at Hersh. Predictably, though, we've barely heard a peep.
Indeed, anonymity is sometimes warranted, and the idea that Hersh's sources were anonymous should not come as a surprise. These are highly classified operations. The Defense Department has openly threatened to prosecute people for talking about the bin Laden raid, even as the CIA leaks its own version of events to friendly reporters and movie producers.
Why do establishment media watchers bristle at Hersh's using anonymity for its intended purpose-protecting whistleblowers from retaliation-while expressing no problem with the routine use of unnamed sources to allow official spokespeople to make statements on behalf of their institutions with no accountability?
When the nameless are speaking on behalf of power, they're in line with the official narrative: They're on the rails. When an anonymous source is challenging power, they call that narrative into question-and go off the rails.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, the purveyors of Iraqi WMDs, the eternal predictors of imminent Iranian nukes, the drone apologists who insist every "military-aged male" is a militant are accorded a presumption of credibility. Whereas calling into question the official story provokes not just skepticism but hostility: It's an affront, after all, to those journalists who have the restraint, decency and good taste to stay on the rails.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
In his brilliant analysis in Columbia Journalism Review (3/15/15) of establishment media reaction to Seymour Hersh's re-examination of the killing of Osama bin Laden (London Review of Books, 5/21/15), the Guardian's Trevor Timm notes that one of the put-downs hurled at Hersh to discredit his story is "off the rails"-as in, "In recent years, however, Hersh has appeared increasingly to have gone off the rails," as Max Fisher put it in his Vox broadside (5/11/15).
It's an odd choice of metaphor. Rails, after all, are meant to keep a vehicle on a predetermined track. It's not much of compliment to compare a journalist to a smoothly operating train, always showing up at the official stations.
Am I reading too much into a cliche? Consider the reaction to Hersh's use of anonymous sources that Timm describes:
It has been rich watching journalists fall over each other to see who can more vehemently criticize Hersh's use of anonymous sources, despite the fact that using anonymous sources is a tried-and-true Washington ritual that receives almost no criticism in day-to-day reporting. Banal sound bites are regularly printed on the front pages without names attached, and entire press conferences are held every day with "senior government officials" who refuse to be named....
According to the excellent Twitter account @NYTAnon, the Times published at least 20 stories relying on anonymous sources in the five days after the Hersh story went online Sunday night, on topics ranging from new Facebook features to strife among Democrats over the stalled trade agreement to Cablevision dropping its bid for the Daily News. Imagine if reporters aimed a tenth of the criticism at those stories that they aimed at Hersh. Predictably, though, we've barely heard a peep.
Indeed, anonymity is sometimes warranted, and the idea that Hersh's sources were anonymous should not come as a surprise. These are highly classified operations. The Defense Department has openly threatened to prosecute people for talking about the bin Laden raid, even as the CIA leaks its own version of events to friendly reporters and movie producers.
Why do establishment media watchers bristle at Hersh's using anonymity for its intended purpose-protecting whistleblowers from retaliation-while expressing no problem with the routine use of unnamed sources to allow official spokespeople to make statements on behalf of their institutions with no accountability?
When the nameless are speaking on behalf of power, they're in line with the official narrative: They're on the rails. When an anonymous source is challenging power, they call that narrative into question-and go off the rails.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, the purveyors of Iraqi WMDs, the eternal predictors of imminent Iranian nukes, the drone apologists who insist every "military-aged male" is a militant are accorded a presumption of credibility. Whereas calling into question the official story provokes not just skepticism but hostility: It's an affront, after all, to those journalists who have the restraint, decency and good taste to stay on the rails.
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
In his brilliant analysis in Columbia Journalism Review (3/15/15) of establishment media reaction to Seymour Hersh's re-examination of the killing of Osama bin Laden (London Review of Books, 5/21/15), the Guardian's Trevor Timm notes that one of the put-downs hurled at Hersh to discredit his story is "off the rails"-as in, "In recent years, however, Hersh has appeared increasingly to have gone off the rails," as Max Fisher put it in his Vox broadside (5/11/15).
It's an odd choice of metaphor. Rails, after all, are meant to keep a vehicle on a predetermined track. It's not much of compliment to compare a journalist to a smoothly operating train, always showing up at the official stations.
Am I reading too much into a cliche? Consider the reaction to Hersh's use of anonymous sources that Timm describes:
It has been rich watching journalists fall over each other to see who can more vehemently criticize Hersh's use of anonymous sources, despite the fact that using anonymous sources is a tried-and-true Washington ritual that receives almost no criticism in day-to-day reporting. Banal sound bites are regularly printed on the front pages without names attached, and entire press conferences are held every day with "senior government officials" who refuse to be named....
According to the excellent Twitter account @NYTAnon, the Times published at least 20 stories relying on anonymous sources in the five days after the Hersh story went online Sunday night, on topics ranging from new Facebook features to strife among Democrats over the stalled trade agreement to Cablevision dropping its bid for the Daily News. Imagine if reporters aimed a tenth of the criticism at those stories that they aimed at Hersh. Predictably, though, we've barely heard a peep.
Indeed, anonymity is sometimes warranted, and the idea that Hersh's sources were anonymous should not come as a surprise. These are highly classified operations. The Defense Department has openly threatened to prosecute people for talking about the bin Laden raid, even as the CIA leaks its own version of events to friendly reporters and movie producers.
Why do establishment media watchers bristle at Hersh's using anonymity for its intended purpose-protecting whistleblowers from retaliation-while expressing no problem with the routine use of unnamed sources to allow official spokespeople to make statements on behalf of their institutions with no accountability?
When the nameless are speaking on behalf of power, they're in line with the official narrative: They're on the rails. When an anonymous source is challenging power, they call that narrative into question-and go off the rails.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, the purveyors of Iraqi WMDs, the eternal predictors of imminent Iranian nukes, the drone apologists who insist every "military-aged male" is a militant are accorded a presumption of credibility. Whereas calling into question the official story provokes not just skepticism but hostility: It's an affront, after all, to those journalists who have the restraint, decency and good taste to stay on the rails.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.