Or, news reporting is tricky.
One of the first and most important lessons of journalism is that hardly anything ever actually happens. It allegedly happens. Or it happens according to so-and-so. Maybe if the big event happens right in front of the reporter’s eyes it’s OK to say it happened, but to be safe the reporter should preface any observation with “this reporter observed this event,” followed by “according to so-and-so, that’s what happened.”
There are several reasons for this, but a big one is that sources often get the facts wrong themselves. Even people in a position to know stuff sometimes get the details scrambled in their own heads. If the reporter writes that thus-and-so happened and it didn’t happen, then the reporter was wrong. On the other hand, if the reporter writes that thus-and-so happened according to Whomever, and the reporter can document that Whomever really did provide that information, the mistake was Whomever’s.
It’s also standard practice to get corroboration from other sources, especially if the sources want to be off-the-record, before publishing a news story. A single source who comes forward with juicy information may be trying to manipulate some event by spreading false information. Or, the single source might just be wrong, even if he or she is in a position to know something.
Wannabe journalists who blog often skirt around these rules and proclaim something to be true and factual because his friend Joe heard it from his father-in-law. Or they’ll construct fanciful scenarios based on gossamer evidence without warning readers that the scenario is just speculation. Most professionals have had the experience of getting chewed out by an editor for screwing up, but the amateurs usually bury a mistake in a ton of verbiage and bluster and skip away. So they don’t learn from mistakes. That’s why they’re amateurs.
If you’re a regular you may have noticed that I slap generous amounts of disclaimers and caveats and “according to’s” around most of what I write here. Especially when dealing with unfolding events, a certain amount of skepticism is essential to getting at the truth
So when Jason Leopold of Truthout claimed on Saturday that Karl Rove had already been indicted, I said I was skeptical. Today some people in a position to know the facts deny there is an indictment and even that Fitzgerald met with Karl Rove’s lawyer last Friday. Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft has tracked down some of Jason Leopold’s sources and has confirmed that he did have sources and did not just make up the story out of thin air. However, it seems to me the sourcing was thin, even partly second-hand (the source told another reporter who passed it on to Leopold).
Thin sourcing doesn’t mean a story isn’t true. In the news biz one can’t always wait until every detail is locked down and independently verified; often, by the time you’ve accomplished that, the story is a week old and the public has lost interest. So news media often go public with sourcing that’s not as solid as they might wish. But in that case the reporter had better inject plenty of “allegedly’s” and “according to’s” and every other disclaimer in the dictionary into the published story to warn news consumers to consume with caution. And Jason Leopold didn’t do that.
I’m sorry, but this is amateur work. It may very well be that Leopold was set up, as Jeralyn suggests. But reporters get set up all the time. That’s what disclaimers are for. It may be that eventually we’ll learn Leopold’s story was correct, but that doesn’t excuse posting a story as thinly sourced as this one was without sticking some warning labels on it.
It seems Leopold was a little too eager to get out of the starting gate and that he posted his story with a sense of extreme confidence in his knowledge of the facts. Who knows where it’s going to go as far as Rove is concerned? One interesting thought is that Fitzgerald’s latest filing( the one where Cheney’s notations are included) pretty much punches a hole in the defenses tactic of claiming the details in the Plame story were overlooked due to an insignificance of the matter. The same case that Fitzgerald builds against Libby’s selective memory loss will probably be applied to Rove. The whole Wilson issue was not a trivial matter for the White House, and I don’t think Rove’s forgetfulness is going to fly with Fitzgerald..From my understanding, Rove has already qualified himself for an indictment.. and he’s living under Fitzgerald’s grace.
If wishes were horses…. Well, I still want that pony for Christmas.
Another tease??Damn it!!!!!!It’s not even funny anymore!And just when I had my new invention”bush shaped soap on a rope” all ready to send to karl….damn damn damn!!!!The only good news about this story? Everyday that passes this trials end is further and further away…at this rate karl will never be tried and convicted in time for a bush pardon….That could be interesting…still I am bummed out
Pingback: Spidelblog » Blog Archive » Karl Rove Indictment an elaborate Hoax? Did Jason Leopold get Rolled?
I wonder if this is why Karl Rove was on C-Span today taking questions? I mean trying to appear confident that anything is coming down the pike.
I heard the story about possible indictment on CNN – I think – this weekend.
I want the story to be true! Time will tell (I hope).
It’s a shame that people nature lack’s patience. The lead that was broken of the internet is just that, a lead. One must give time for things to materialize. As much as people are out for his head, Karl Rove is still a very powerful individual. Although he is in deep waters he is still a political Goliath. Disposing of him won’t be that easy. One of his closest allies is the President of the United States. How many strings can be pulled on the strength of that alone?
Another thing people must remember is that an indictment is not a conviction, it is a legal accusation. There is still a long process to go which could drag out for another year or more. I am not advocating Karl Rove nor am I trying to disprove the accusations. Rather I am advocating that people exercise patience and let the events unfold. Rome wasn’t built in a day and the Bush administration is in no shape to take any mud to the face. The news media isn’t either. They are not going to break this story until it’s verifiable on court dockets. Well that’s my 2 cents.
Oh for crying out loud!!!! Patience???This has been on going since before the 2004 elections …2 years is about as much patience as any person can have….actually for 6 years most have us have waited to be delivered from evil..Patience is wearing thin in a major way
I am admittedly impatient that Karl Rove be finally taken down from his evil reign. One thing that assuages my impatience is the knowledge that Patrick Fitzgerald is such an obviously patient and thorough prosecutor.
And thanks, justme, for pointing out that a delayed timing could work against Rove ever getting a Bush pardon.
Meanwhile, my imaginings are conjuring up scenes of Abu Gonzales behind the scenes trying his best to meddle in Fitzgerald’s case, hoping to pull some crap to neuter Fitz. And, hey…Gonzales and Negroponte and Bush and Cheney and Rice and Hadley and Rumsfeld and Hayden and who knows how many others on the presidential lying team [we already have examples of their lying] will be at increased risk when evil genius Rove gets taken out.
Another thing people must remember is that an indictment is not a conviction, it is a legal accusation.
I’ll settle for an indictment…Like they say in baseball..”a hit’s as good as a run”