About the Story in Newsweek... Kinda

How about this...

When writing news articles, for any medium, if the source isn't named, the story isn't run.

Look, lets' face facts, in recent history, oh, say from about Watergate to now, the "unnamed source" has become all too familiar a figure in the news.

DeepThroat, for example, *rolling my eyes*, how dramatic was that? How captivating? How well did DeepThroat sell newspapers and make movie stars out of Woodward and Bernstein (Redford and Hoffman), as well as best-selling authors? It was a superlative stroke of genius, whoever dreamed it up, it was spectacular. DeepThroat. How provocative, mysterious, a real page-turner, a real paper-seller.

The story they wrote was, in my lifetime, the first huge, incredible discovery of information implicating so many people of illegal political behavior; all the way up to the president. The facts followed. There was no doubt about it. It was fact. And the hearings bore that out. And one by one they all fell down.

Because DeepThroat was a mixture of several important people, none of whom could be named (or, perhaps they were and we still don't know it), it was here we find the genius. Blending them all together into one very mysterious figure who knew the facts. Good way to go.

But facts matter. That's the difference. There has to be, in the end, balls to the wall, no room to breathe, between a rock and a hard place, the gun's to your chest, the knife's to your throat, the bamboo is under your fingernails, the water is dripping on your forehead... Someone accountable that knows the facts.

Journalistic liars, in need of sensationalism to garner themselves or their publication attention, have all too often gone to the "unnamed source" to get that edge. Journalistic liars completely making up entire situations, circumstances, people, conspiracies. Journalists' reputations are as bad as attorneys and car salesman, these days. They're a laughing stock. Nothing is really read with confidence anymore. Nothing.

Seymour Hirsch. Never names a source. Never. Everything is innuendo and opinion. And he's considered credible? Not in my book. It's this type of journalism that gives journalists a bad name. They've glommed on to the Woodward and Bernstein school of journalism to create sensationalism and doubt. Not cool. Not when society at large is reading what you think happened and believing it as journalistic truth - when it's not. It's only opinion. Personal opinion. That's dangerous. And maybe that's the point. It's sick and twisted, but maybe that's the point.

In the old days, the stories would stand behind who said what. No matter how inane or outlandish, how screwy or important; people were held responsible for their words. What is that old saying? "My word is my bond." not anymore.

There used to be, come on, say it with me...

Credibility and personal responsibility!

Yes! You're right! There used to be.

I know, sometimes a scoop comes along and that informational source just can't be named for security reasons. But everyone reading the story would understand that because the unnamed source "thing" would be so rarely used.

I truly believe, in these times, there are so few circumstances when someone would not want to be named. When you're telling the truth, what's the problem? And, isn't that the point in journalism? Truth?

I’m not talking about personal truth, here, which is, as we all know, opinion. I’m talking about The Truth.

Am I being idealistic? Is the personal and profit agenda so deeply engrained in the (journalistic) human being, that this disregard for truth is inevitable? Is that what I am to believe? Has the world gone mad? People believe the most outrageous things these days without question. Everyone doubts everyone. Everyone is looked at with suspicion and intentions are always circumspect. Everyone so eager to jump into the fray of violence, prejudice, and hate.

Ethics is a foreign word. One to be italicized and scoffed at as something "superior" or hopelessly unattainable, a laughable pipedream.

If that source, in your regular run-of-the-mill story, is unable to have their name associated with the story... Nuh-uh. That information is discounted until such time as it can be confirmed with at least three other people who will give their names.

Why couldn't the person who relayed this information about the alleged desecration of the Koran give his or her name? Why? What possible personal repercussions could result from another's alleged actions? What? I can't imagine one thing.

For the record, the unnamed source said this morning, he couldn't be sure if it really happened or not.

What????? What????? You're not sure? Then what the fuck are you talking about it for?

Yes!!!! Talk with your friends about it, if you want to mull over the possible consequences of such an action, but... To state it as fact to a news publication? A global news publication?

Washington cover-up? I don't think so. This administration has taken the heat for fucking everything from the war to Aunt Emma’s quilting an inaccurate square. Come on. This administration has not hidden from a single thing. Consequences have been given any offending party, investigations are and have been in place on several things, people are being fired, replaced, retired, ousted; some promoted. Every situation has been dealt with, and will continue to be.

You'd think anyone and everyone would want to point the finger at the bad guy here. Behavior, of the type alleged, is unthinkable. Blatantly awful. Not just because of the blatant insensitivity, but because it is a desecration of a holy book. It doesn’t matter if it’s your holy book, it is a holy book. Holy articles are not disrespected. Ever. It doesn’t matter the religion. Holy is holy. I’d want to be able to look at the person responsible for such an action with a just a little bit of an Eastwood squint, wouldn't you? Just be able to look at them with disgust? If it even happened. *lifting my brow*

And now, people have died because someone, unnamed, lied to a journalist and that journalist (or the editors) made the decision to use unconfirmed information as fact. Now, even more people hate America. Even more people want to kill Americans. And it's going to spread like wildfire.

Irresponsible journalism is a disease and it must be eradicated.