The Death of Credibility in American Media

The Death of Credibility in American Media Meghan L. Gilling Queens University of Charlotte

The Death of Credibility in American Media Abstract

American news outlets have been greatly failing at their role as the media watchdog. Not only is more news today focus on soft news pieces and entertainment and gossip news, but the lackadaisical accreditation of anonymous sources has lead to a demise in the credibility of news outlets, the over seeing editors, and the writers who produce the news that the American public consumes on a day to day basis. It is believed that the ease and laziness of modern reporters, along with the cutthroat need to be the first outlet that breaks a story, has contributed to the demise of credibility. While there are some news outlets that have been publically embarrassed due to the realization that some of their stories and sources arent entirely credible, the movement to work towards eliminating the large number of daily stories with daily sources is slow, but sure. This paper takes the opportunity to review just how events like Watergate and Plamegate, and the anonymous sources associated with them, have contributed to the rise in anonymous sources in day to day news, while also posing suggestions for more stringent story, fact, and source review processes before a story goes to print.

The Death of Credibility in American Media

There is immense interest in the topic of anonymous sources, and how they affect the media. To think, that an anonymous source could break information on the biggest news story ever, or completely make one up and have everyone hanging on their every word one way or another, is entirely mind blowing. The intent of this paper is to see just how these anonymous sources affect the media, the way the media reports, and whether or not it affects the credibility of the media source, and the story. This is also something that should be looked into actively. As a population of people tend to take all of their news passively, at face value. Questions should be asked. Answers should be given. However, someone has to take the initiative which one hopes to do through this paper. The news and entertainment news junkets, particularly American news and entertainment news junkets, and huge users and abusers of the phrase anonymous source. It seems that more often than not, it is impossible to read some sort of story and not see the phrase included anywhere. More and more journalists have gotten used to promising a source anonymity in order to get some sort of quote or information, that it seems like identifying information for a source isnt even asked anymore. Its almost as if every time a reporter asks someone for a statement or quote, they dont even bother asking for a name. That is a huge problem. It directly affects the credibility of the story, the credibility of the reporter, the credibility of the editor, and the credibility of the newspaper. Stories and authors are being called

The Death of Credibility in American Media out and criticized by the public for leaning to heavily on the idea of an anonymous source. Two words commonly come to mind when one thinks about anonymous sources and a positive result associated with it- Deep Throat. Deep Throat is the most recognizable figure as an anonymous source, known for breaking the Watergate Scandal and ultimately having President Nixon removed from office. On

June 17, 1972 five men broke into the Democratic National Committee offices, inside the Watergate Hotel. Eventually it was discovered that these men were all directly employed by President Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President (Cacace, 2009). The big question on the American peoples mind was, what were they doing? They were found with money and tools, and tried for attempted wire tapping and burglary, but it didnt really equate to too much, until it was discovered that they were taping the discussions of the Democratic National Chairman, as well as tapes of discussions form within the White House, tapes of which Nixon refused to turn over. However, Nixon did finally turn the tapes over, through which it was revealed that he knew of the Watergate break in, and did not want the FBI to investigate it, as it was a matter of national security. More investigations reveled more people, high-ranking staff, involved with more of Nixons scandals. However, it wasnt really until Bob Woodward and Carl Berstein, employed by the Washington Post, decided to keep up with and pursue the story, that the American public really had an idea of what had happened. These two gentlemen happened to have an

The Death of Credibility in American Media anonymous White House employee, a man who went by the name of Deep Throat who kept them in the loop. The man known as Deep Throat provided details and leads to the two reporters, which they took and investigated, in turn breaking a lot of information on various scandals going on. Deep Throat, or Mark Felt as he later revealed himself in 2005, was influential, he was a turning point in the world of journalism, that being, an inside source who provided factual, concrete leads that did pan out. Deep Throat, as a figure and person, was revered as a hero, as a wonderful whistle blower who recognized many internal problems, and helped bring them to light. However, it seems that anyone who is an anonymous source, or is involved with an anonymous source, can be regarded as un-American, or selfish and dangerous. Valerie Plame was a special undercover CIA agent, had her cover blown by Robert Novaks article Mission to Niger which was printed on July 14, 2003 in The Washington Post. The article covers the controversy surrounding the

weapons of mass destruction on Iraq, and the investigation that was done by Joseph C. Wilson, Plames husband. Where does an undercover CIA agent come into all of this? A paragraph in Novaks article states, Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction (Novak, 2003). Prior to the release of Novaks article, there was a big controversy over whether or not Wilson provided an accurate report to the President about the

The Death of Credibility in American Media state of the supposed weapons of mass destruction. Her leak followed shortly thereafter, causing swirling rumors and trials against various government officials, of leaking her identity. Lewis Scooter Libby, former Vice President Dick Cheneys former Chief of Staff, was tried and indicted

on five charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements (Fitzgerald, 2005). After the trial, Novak found himself being criticized from all sides. People wondered why he exposed Plame, knowing that she was a CIA agent, people wanted to know whom his sources were, as he only named them as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source (Novak, 2006). However, Novak refused to give up his sources, claiming that he wanted to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment shield sources that have not revealed themselves (Novak, 2006). One assumes he had a very important source he was protecting, or that he was choosing this particular case as a platform to speak out about protecting anonymous sources, which is a controversial subject, at best. Why is it so controversial? Here, we have a study of two different events in history that entail two different anonymous sources. While two different cases, that is, the case surrounding Deep Throat being more beneficial to the great good of the people, and the case of Plame unfortunately ruining her CIA career, they both ask

The Death of Credibility in American Media the questions, should anonymous sources be used, should anonymous sources be protected, and do anonymous sources hurt or help a story, and the criticism that surrounds it? One could argue that clearly, based off of these two examples alone, that each case has to be taken on a case-by-case basis that one blanket statement cant be made regarding all anonymous sources. It could be argued that all anonymous sources are helpful and beneficial in some way. It could be argued that all anonymous sources are useless and shouldnt be used or protected. Regardless, the reality is that anonymous sources do play a huge role in the day-to-day news in this country, even if it is about something that is more or less inconsequential. It is common to see gossip and entertainment news pepper with the phrase A friend of the celebrity says, or a person close to the celebrity claims. The actual phrase an anonymous source isnt the only way designated anonymity is awarded.

So are all of these anonymous sources ruining our news sources? In 1979, an Ohio University Journalism Professor, Hugh Culbertson took a survey of more than 200 editors around the country about their use of anonymous sources. The results showed that 81% of the editors thought that the reliance on anonymous sources was damaging the credibility of the press. Culbertsons results showed that [m]ost said competition forced them to use unnamed sources, and that One third were unhappy to a substantial degree with how anonymous sources were handled at their own newspapers, and [] that more than half would go on the record if reporters pushed harder (Culbertson, 1994)

The Death of Credibility in American Media Yes, the study is from 1979, and the article itself is from December 1994, however, if that was the belief then, which Culbertson even goes on to say in his article that it was very likely that his results would reflect the opinions in 1994,

imagine what those numbers would be like today. A more recent poll, taken in 2005 showed that Americans were pretty evenly divided when asked whether or not it was acceptable for news organizations to cite anonymous sources in their reporting and documentation. About half (52%) say the use of such sources is too risky because it can lead to inaccurate reports, while 44% say it is okay because it can yield important news that they otherwise wouldnt get ( Folkenflik, 2009). Confusion on the issue is natural, not everyone really knows which is the right or wrong answer, which doesnt exist. Technically, pointing out the idea that using anonymous sources could potentially break news that consumers otherwise wouldnt get, is a valid reason. However, in a day and age where technology keeps us connected every second of every minute, where phones arent mobile phones, but mobile computers, one finds this sort of hard to believe. Whether breaking news may come from a gossip sight, a Twitter account, your Facebook newsfeed, CNN, or your mom calling and telling you, there is a much greater likelihood of one finding out about something happening, than not. However, the real issue goes back to the root of the problem; is it credible. Technically, anything one reads on a blog that isnt associated with a widely known junket of sorts, or a gossip website, or even a celebritys Twitter feed, isnt credible. If one chooses to believe what they read, and take it all for face value, then their argument more likely than not would be that

The Death of Credibility in American Media

anonymous sources are just fine. However, for someone who reads hard news, only from world wide known, credible sources, and even then cross checks stories against other outlets to try and get all the available facts, would say that no, anonymous sources arent credible or reliable. Then one has to ask, are the anonymous sources really worth it? Sure, you might luck out and break a big story, that once in a million chance, but there is a much greater chance that the story or lead is bogus, or doesnt lead at all to where a reporter may want it to go. Sometimes, it opens up a can of worms they arent prepared to handle. For all those other times, the 999,9999 out of a million chances, where the anonymous source really does nothing for the story, the credibility of the author and the paper is diminished. Allen H. Neuharth, the founder of USA Today even goes as far to say, that Theres not a place for anonymous sources [] the negative impact is so great that we cant overcome the lack of trust until or unless we ban them (Shepard, 1994). Clearly, the opinion of people in the news business isnt too fond of the anonymous source, probably because they are more of a hindrance than a help. So what is going to happen? Some news outlets are aggressively working to cut their use of anonymous sources. After the scandal with USA Todays reporter Jack Kelley, where Kelley admitted to fabricating entire stories, sources included,

USA Today in particular is on a campaign to be more stringent on the use of

anonymous sources. An article from National Public Radios website states that On average, one article a day in the paper features an anonymous source: Editors say thats down 75% since last October (Folkenflik, 2009). One article a day, and that is

The Death of Credibility in American Media

10

down 75%? That is amazing. It is hard to imagine opening up a paper and knowing that one of those articles, out of the entire thing, every day, has one anonymous source. Another study from poynter.com, reveals that a survey of 419 media outlets found that most allow reporters to protect a sources identity [] nearly one-quarter of editors said theyve banned the practice entirely (Pitts, 2005). So the banning of allowing protection via being an anonymous source isnt just a figment of ones imagination. While the ban is probably very slow moving and most likely, not very popular, at least some editors are realizing the risk of their credibility, and putting a stop to a practice, that is believed to have taken the media world by storm in the mid 1970s after Deep Throat became such an iconic figure, and became so glamorous. Perhaps editors and media outlets are also taking into consideration those consumers who do speak out. The same article mentions a voluntary online survey that was sent out, and the results showed that a similar number of readers- about one in five- said media outlets should never report information if a source isnt willing to be named (Pitts, 2005). Thats a pretty good number of people, especially considering the small sample size. While it isnt a clear indicator of everyones thought on this issue in the entire country, it does still paint a clear picture- that people arent willing to sacrifice the validity and credibility of the news stories and sources that they read on a day to day basis. The news business is cutthroat; there is no doubt about that. The singular mission, to find a story, get as many details as possible, and be the first to break the

The Death of Credibility in American Media

11

story is the main idea behind it all, quickly followed up with, being the outlet to have the newest updates on the story, the quickest. So it can be tempting, when someone will slide a reporter details, off the record, to promise them you will keep them anonymous, especially for a rookie reporter who doesnt have much respect. If they think they have a big story, or really great scandalous details that havent been released about the latest case, they will jump at the opportunity to take the information and print it in the paper. However, as studies from both the late 1970s, and the mid 2000s show, there is an uneasy feeling about this practice. Readers are hesitant to accept facts; they have to wonder if their favorite reporter or columnist is making up facts, figures and stories, or even if they are just slightly tweaking the storyline in their latest piece. Or, people become really suspicious, wondering if a whole newspaper is full of liars who just want to sell papers. The other side too is the editors and outlets. If an editor trusts their staff, especially someone like the all around favorite, the number one reporter, they arent going to go back and make sure every statement and fact is totally true, or question why there might be so many anonymous sources in every single piece that someone writes. It is unfortunate, but it is almost as if editors cannot blindly trust their writers anymore. More fact checking and source checking needs to go into the stories, especially for outlets that maintain an online website. There is no excuse for not going back to edit or tweak a statement or even pull a story off if it isnt true. The Internet is the easy mode to manipulate and much quicker to correct than a daily newspaper. Editors also need to be more prepared to take responsibility if they allow their writers to go willy-nilly with sources and accept multiple articles and

The Death of Credibility in American Media

12

stories with multiple anonymous sources. Obviously in some instances, like gossip magazines and entertainment news, this is a little more acceptable as terrible as it is, because it isnt crucial, hard news. But even more borderline medium news, that is, something that isnt on the same scale as maybe an unfortunate catastrophe in a large city, but rather a catastrophe in your local town, needs to be checked more thoroughly. People rely on the news outlets to report accurate facts, and to keep them informed. Knowingly reporting incorrect facts, especially under the assumption of an anonymous source is a direct example of the media failing its watchdog role, which is unacceptable. While consumers must take a grain of salt to the news that they actively take in and consider, there is also a responsibility on the behalf of the news outlets to make sure that what they are reporting is correct and credible. If the people are to rely on the media to act as a watchdog, and to watch and break news on important happenings and things that people should be aware of, then it is up to them to report it accurately, and if someone wants to be a whistle blower, or someone who simply cannot resist the urge to gossip and tell all the secret details, then they should be held responsible, and credited for their statements. The public shouldnt be left wondering after reading something accredited to an anonymous source, if it really is true, and whether or not their news source is credible, especially if it is a big news source. How are people supposed to buy into media outlets and believe what they print and put out there, if everything is anonymous?

The Death of Credibility in American Media

13

References Cacace, Chris. (May 27, 2009). History of Watergate and Its Lasting Effects on Investigative Journalism. Associated Content. Retrieved from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1761096/history_of_watergate_a nd_its_lasting_pg4.html?cat=37. Fitzgerald, Patrick. (October 29, 2005). Cheneys top aide indicted: CIA leak probe continues. CNN. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2005-1028/politics/leak.probe_1_lewis-scooter-libby-patrick-fitzgerald-leakprobe?_s=PM:POLITICS. Folkenflick, David. (August 29, 2005). USA Today Cuts Use of Anonymous Sources. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4815420. Novak, D. Robert. (July 12, 2006). My Role in the Valerie Plame Leak Story. Human Events. Retrieved from http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15988. Novak, D. Robert. (July 14, 2003). Mission To Niger.

The Death of Credibility in American Media The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102000874.html. Pitts, Ryan. (June 16, 2005). Readers: Anonymous Sources Affect Media Credibility. Poynter. Retrieved from

14

http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/69577/readers-anonymous-sourcesaffect-media-credibility/. Shepard, C. Alicia. (December 1994). Anonymous Sources. American Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1596.