confidential sources

MORE:

re: “One nuance, remember, is that if a reporter changes his assessment from “mostly confident in X” to “less confident in X” or “no longer confident in X” does that mean that the first statement is wrong?”

That’s the risk they take when they choose to use confidential sources (they can’t break their promise, they would have never gotten that info if they would not have agreed to confidentiality). If you are talking about regular sources, there are such things as retractions (if they believe their prior report was in error).

re: “Why doesn’t every news organization have a wiki for every fact that they know (going forward…)?

for many good reasons, I suspect… (not divulging the info to competitors is the first that comes to mind)

Delia

STILL MORE:

re: “And despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica.”

–> I think this is *potentially* conspiracy to deceive the public (but just… potentially…) D.

Jon, I think this was the real problem and a database that tracks errors couldn’t expose confidential sources any more than ABS can just came out and do it now (if it wants to still use confidential sources in the future).

Delia

MORE:

Having an error database seems like a good idea; it could also include things like “we are working on a similar report” etc. but I’m not sure how it would work from the reader’s side: would you be searching at different times for errors in an article you read in a continuously changing database because you had a hunch an error might have been there? it seems to me that placing an update note at the top of the article from the time when an error is detected and giving the readers the option to sign up for email updates if they would like to be informed if and when any error would go into the database would be more user-friendly; I suppose you could charge a small fee for the service if *really* needed.

Delia

P.S. But this would not have prevented the major problem in the situation we are talking about, would it? D.

EVEN MORE:

here is the part I find most important:

“And despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica.”

–> I think this is *potentially* conspiracy to deceive the public (but just… potentially…) D.

MORE:

re: “If these events occurred the way Ross says they did — and if ABC has done sufficient homework to ensure that they were not part of a scheme to manipulate the network — then ABC would be justified in not revealing the the sources’ names now.”

The sources were confidential: they spoke to ABC on *this condition*. Whether or not ABC did their homework is irrelevant to whether or not ABC should break its promise (oral contract?) to those they regarded as sources.

Again, the courts could expose the identity of the sources if it was indeed conspiracy to deceive the public.

Delia

STILL MORE:

“If a journalist can not distinguish between a source, and someone who is trying to manufacture propaganda, then it must be left to the courts.” –> this appears to have been the case, ABC honestly (and not incompetently) thought those were credible corroborating sources.

Delia

P.S. The identity of “the sources” can be obtained through legal means without compromising ABC’s ability of using trustworthy confidential sources in the future. In the mean time, this would send the right message to those would be dishonest future “sources”: the courts will expose your identity if you use confidentiality for nefarious reasons. D.

EVEN MORE:

Alexandra,

re: “These questions must be answered and let the chips fall as they may.”

I think we should step back and choose the alternative that renders us better off. There is always a possibility to game the system, whether the source is confidential or not. And I think the consequences I am offering are probable, not just possible. No sources — confidential or not — can game the system *with impunity* unless they are allowed to do that. Doesn’t mean the investigation should be stopped — there should be legal means of getting the identity of the sources if this was indeed conspiracy to deceive the public.

Delia

MORE:

Craig,

True, but should ABC be required to forgo trustworthy confidential sources in the future in order to get to the bottom of this *one* story, even if a very important one?

Delia

P.S. you can also look at it from the public interest POV: are we all better off getting to the bottom of *this* story (and maybe a few others in the same category) and forgoing a lot more trustworthy confidential information in the future or are we better of accepting such isolated incidents of unfortunate duping as the trade off for continuing to get useful confidential info? D.

....

I would think quite a few trustworthy sources would decline to provide info you cannot get any other way if they saw you exposed someone else's identity, even if well deserved. D.