Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Deep Source

By Joe Strupp, Editor & Publisher. Posted June 1, 2005.


At a time when journalists are increasingly under attack for anonymous sources, history's most famous confidential source is being heard -- just in time to give anonymous sourcing everywhere new life.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Joe Strupp

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 

At a time when journalists are increasingly coming under attack for using anonymous sources, history's most famous -- and well-protected (this side of Robert Novak) -- confidential source is being heard. And he emerged just in time to give anonymous sourcing everywhere new life.

W. Mark Felt, the former FBI deputy director whose identity as the famed Watergate source Deep Throat had remained secret for nearly 33 years, broke his silence Tuesday, admitting in a Vanity Fair article that he was The Friend who helped Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein bring down Richard Nixon.

In admitting this, Felt not only solved one of journalism's biggest mysteries, he also reminded skeptics that such reporting can be vital and positive. Moreover, the ability of Woodward, Bernstein and former Post executive editor Ben Bradlee to keep his identity a secret proved that whistleblowers who aid journalists can be protected even over three decades.

But more than solving a legendary Washington riddle, Felt's admission also breathed some much-needed life into the dying support for anonymous sources, which seems to have crippled journalistic credibility in many areas. From WMDs to the Valerie Plame case to Newsweek's recent stumble, confidential sourcing is a much battered journalistic tool.

"This is a case history and a case lesson of why it is so important that we have confidential sources," Carl Bernstein told The New York Times last night.

In recent years, newspapers have clamped down on the use of such sourcing, with tighter rules, stronger pressure to avoid no-name attribution, and more efforts to get information on the record. USA Today claims to have reduced anonymous sourcing by 75% in the past year.

While it is obviously preferable to have as much news on the record as possible, and the trend toward tightening anonymous sourcing can only lead to more reader confidence in news, the reminder of what the duo known as "Woodstein" and Felt accomplished through detailed, methodical, and multi-sourced reporting about a high-government scandal is important.

For a generation of readers who were not even around when Watergate occurred and view anonymous sourcing of today as merely bias, laziness, or cheap shots, a fresh look at Deep Throat's accomplishments, power, and positive contribution to U.S. history, is welcomed.

But it is also a reminder that proper sourcing is still needed. In each case that Deep Throat aided Woodward and Bernstein, he was never used as a sole, or even direct source. He was, as the nickname describes, always "on deep background." Watergate junkies also know quite well that the investigative duo forced themselves to have at least two sources on every story. That lesson remains even more important today, especially after the single-sourced Newsweek goof.

Some observers, such as former Nixon White House aide John Dean, have claimed the Bush administration is even more secretive and anti-press than Nixon's White House. The need for careful anonymous sourcing appears to be more obvious than ever.

And reminders of a past era when even the president could not hide his misdeeds - and a source could remain protected until he chose to come forward decades later - prove again that reporters need not hold back a story just because the sourcing might draw attacks, as long as the news is correct.

Digg!

Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Confidential Sources
Posted by: bookwoman on Jun 1, 2005 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not a surprise that the Administration is making a big thing about confidential sources. Their hypocrisy always amazes me. The "Newsweek" story was not so much unconfirmed as it was not exact. Now there are stories of how the Quaran really was abused by "authorities" at Guatanamo. Although no one has actually admitted flushing one down a toilet, I can imagine it happened. After all, if you throw a book which you don't value into a toilet, would you fish it out again?

If the media, either print or sound, stops using confidential sources, we will get very little information out of any Administration or government on any level. We will also not get information out of corporations or companies which are doing things which are illegal and hiding them. So called "whistle blower" laws are useless since it takes so much effort to prove someone has been harmed and those in command can do innumerable nasty and vicious things to a person who works for them or is otherwise reliant on them. I hope the courage of Woodward and Bernstein and the leadership of Ben Bradlee reminds the media of the necessity of "confidential sources". However, I think they also need to remember the care which was taken in the Watergate case to make sure that the leaks led somewhere which was valid and could be corroborated with a little research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

USA Gestapo
Posted by: gazevans on Jun 1, 2005 4:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course the Administration make a big deal about journalistic anonymity. They're trying to construct the 4th Reich...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: USA Gestapo Posted by: marrieah
» RE: USA Gestapo Posted by: wrolley
» RE: USA Gestapo Posted by: royrogers
» RE: USA Gestapo Posted by: Cybernalt