Part III of News War

As I watched the third installment of Frontline's "News War" program I was struck by the following:

I'm glad I don't work in a newsroom.
As an independent journalist, it's easy to sit and complain about having to convince editors to buy your story ideas. But I can't imagine having to make the same case while on staff. Shrinking news hole is hard enough to face as a consumer of newspapers, but I can't imagine the demoralizing effect it has on staffers. How many times have important projects been turned down because the paper can't justify the cost in man hours or space? Independents can pursue stories of personal interest and are limited only by our ability to find the right market and powers to convince the editors of their news value. It's not ideal, but at least if you get turned down you can try another market.

How many stories are not being told?
Last summer I was corresponding with an independent journalist who was seeking information about obtaining liability insurance. He was a freelance investigative reporter working on a story about the murky relationship between surgeons and a medical device company. He shared the background and there is no question it was an important story, one that needs to be told. But he also forwarded the e-mail he sent to his editors detailing his decision to back off the story. The reason? The magazine's liability insurance did not cover him as a freelancer and he couldn't afford to "lawyer up." As a former daily newspaper journalist, he knew well the costs of doing so. In two cases his previous news organization was forced to "lawyer up" for stories on which he had reported. In both cases, the paper was exonerated, but that didn't mean it didn't incur legal fees. Those costs could break an independent.

I'm working on a story now that involves the federal government. My husband and I have already had the discussion about what kind of legal exposure reporting this story potentially brings. We talked about attorneys who can help vet potentially litigious issues, what risks we were comfortable with and where to draw the line. He is admittedly still squeamish, but supportive after I convinced him of the larger importance of reporting the story.

Is Nick Lemann really that doughy?
Yuk! Leave the southern-fried delicacy at home, Nick. It's affected and disengenous. If I were Columbia Journalism School I'd be looking for some of those PR majors it turns away to do damage control. Scary to think that he is teaching journalists of the future and holds such condescension toward new media.

Too many middle-age white men
Look at the head shots of those interviewed for this series -- it looks pretty homogeneous, which is part of the problem in this program and in the journalism industry. We're always getting news filtered through the middle-age white men who lead newsrooms. The only women interviewed in the program are Dana Priest, Judy Miller, Lucy Dalglish and Lauren Rich Fine. Of the three, only Dana Priest is actively working as a journalist. I would have added Chris Nolan to the list or Monika Bauerlein or Clara Jeffrey, editors at Mother Jones.

Where is discussion of magazine journalism?
Much of this series so far has focused on print, new media and broadcast. Magazine journalism has largely been left off the program even though that's where long-form journalism that packs a wallop still finds a home. To wit, Seymour Hersh's New Yorker piece this week about the Bush Administration's plans in Iran.

Are So-Jo's the way of the future?
Kevin Sites of Yahoo's Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone describes himself as a solo journalist or So-Jo. In his case, he's reporting, shooting video, stills, audio and sending it all back to be packaged and posted to Yahoo. The term sounds hokey, but it's meaning is something to which I can relate. My next purchase is a digital recorder that will allow me to explore audio elements to my stories. No one is requiring that of me—yet—but I'm interested in the multiple ways to tell a story. I'd like to get a digital video recorder as well, but I'll need to sell a few more articles to make that investment.

The point is that as an independent I'm left on my own to evolve or die as a journalist. My tendency to spend more time than I'm being paid for a piece is problematic financially, but I see a long-term payoff. Creative Ink is the ultimate repository of my efforts, which I hope will include audio and video soon. Here is where I will link to published work, but also include more of the reporting and background that was not used in the published piece. Sure I'm not being paid for that "extra" and readership here is not that high, but what if that changes? It only takes one well-placed link to propel a post into the media stratosphere.

Journalism's lone Wolf(ves)

A must read from Monday's Miami Herald is Edward Wasserman's media column, "The vanishing art of standing firm."

Wasserman, the Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University, contrasts the lone ranger efforts of unknown independent journalists such as Vanessa Leggett and Josh Wolf at protecting the principle of the First Amendment with the marquee "singing journalists" who testified at the Scooter Libby trial. The latter were quick to tell Frontline all about the need to protect the principle, but here are two people who have done time -- walked the walk if you will.

Wolf, 24, has been behind bars nearly six months, said to be longer than any other journalist in U.S. history. The previous record was held by another journalist you never heard of, Vanessa Leggett, who spent 168 days in federal lockup in 2001 for refusing to turn over notes for a book about a murder in Texas.

Maybe it's a cheap shot, but the contrast is irresistible between their dogged refusal to talk and the glamorous parade of marquee journalists that queued up in Washington to testify at the trial of Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Cheney's ex-chief of staff.

And later

What happened is that these journalistic heavyweights -- and their employers -- just didn't have the stomach for a fight.

Meanwhile, bantam-weight blogger Josh Wolf languishes in jail to protect some ordinary people and a principle: That reporters have to be able to assure people that they're independent, that they'll stand up to bullying, that they won't be dragooned as helpmates to police, prosecutors or grand juries.

The cruelest irony is that Wolf's tormentors deny he's a journalist at all. To me, if he's independently gathering publicly significant information for the purpose of making it widely known, he's a journalist.

The question is what we call the songbirds at the Libby trial.

Seeking accountability in reporting

Tonight is the second installment of Frontline's "News War" program, a continuation of "Secrets, Sources and Spin." You won't get the full scope of the program unless you check out the extended interviews on the Web site. Some of the more candid moments are found in the transcripts of conversations with journalists such as Seymour Hersh, Dana Priest, Ron Suskind, James Risen and even Josh Wolf.

In the days following the first installment the discussion board was rife with criticisms pointed at Frontline in particular and journalism in general. Consider this from a Scottsdale, Ariz., writer who calls the program a "whitewash":

"The press, including Frontline, is grossly incompetent and saying "Oh, we made a mistake" does (not) make anyone suddenly competent or change the situation. Oh, mea culpa, we followed the New York Times and we should not have. Yuch. The press does not question anything and is incapable of doing so. Current example: Defense Secretary Gates alleges that weapons are clearly coming from Iran because they have "Iranian serial numbers." What the heck is an Iranian serial number? Why did no one question him?"

To be fair, a number of the more recent comments were highly favorable of the reporting in the program, with a number expressing outrage at having been duped to such devastating ends.

The sharpest criticism on the discussion board, however, was directed at Judith Miller, who was labeled a ditz and a shill for the Bush Administration. Many questioned giving her a platform, though the argument can be made that she is (for better or worse) a big reason why we're having this conversation.

One writer did ponder why the lesser-known journalists whose reporting demonstrated skepticism about the administration's claims in the build-up to the war were not featured more prominently. That's a fair question. Do we really need to see more of those who are regulars on cable news in addition to the front pages of the national papers?

If they were setting the agenda for coverage at their agenda-setting news organizations, doesn't the public deserve to hear from those who bucked their lead and actually questioned the reasons for going to war? Shouldn't we also hear from that great anonymous herd of journalists trying to do the story justice without the superstar asterisk next to their byline?

We heard in the first episode about reporters from Knight-Ridder's Washington Bureau challenging the administration's rationale for war in Iraq, but we didn't hear directly from the reporters who did the work and faced veiled threats by the administration.

We're seeing some of this all over again as the New York Times allows Michael Gordon (Judith Miller's cohort on WMD reporting) to cover the saber-rattling about Iran. Which brings up today's point: In all of this blame directed at how journalists do their job, the reality is that layers of editors permitted the mediocrity. Just as they receive praise for courageous decisions (such as running the CIA black prison site story), they also deserve blame for not questioning sourcing or for not demanding to know the source of the sourcing. Wasn't Gordon's credibility on national security reporting permanently damaged by his work with Miller? Why allow him to continue covering the beat? And don't tell me it's because of his source network. I think we've already established that it is "less than."

Over a year ago I wrote the following analysis for Quill magazine laying the blame for the Judith Miller saga at the feet of NYT editors.

Quill Magazine / December 2005 Analysis
Seeking accountability in the Miller saga
By Wendy A. Hoke

Prosecutors will tell you that they don’t get to choose the victims they represent. Sometimes those victims come with baggage that makes them appear unsympathetic. Yet prosecutors will work the case because they’re charged with prosecuting crimes, not representing palatable victims.

Such is the case of New York Times reporter Judith Miller. She spent 85 days in jail to defend the principle of protecting confidential sources in the course of doing her job. It was an important stand given the federal prosecutors’ propensity to issue subpoenas to reporters to share what they know about federal wrongdoing.

The leadership of the Society of Professional Journalists believed that her stand should be recognized with a First Amendment Award. Despite criticism that arose both inside and outside the Society, SPJ honored her at its national convention in Las Vegas in October.

Miller’s scripted-like responses to prepared questions lobbed at her not by SPJ attendees but by a trusted legal colleague exposed Miller to be a flawed journalist, who looked more like an exposed nerve ending than the anti-Christ of reportage.

This perceived vulnerability fails to mitigate the fact that she has engaged in some questionable behavior that smacks of high-powered favoritism on the one extreme and sheer laziness on the other, as evidenced by her over-reliance on confidential sources and willingness to capitulate to misleading attribution.

The lesson, particularly for the young members of SPJ, is to beware of the excesses that can bring a superstar reporter to his or her knees. And beware the newsroom that breeds such a poisonous culture.

While there are a number of troubling aspects to this story, they don’t all fall at the feet of Judith Miller. Behind every reporter is a cadre of editors that assign and edit stories before publishing.

Why didn’t her editors more carefully supervise her? It defies logic that editors at The New York Times would allow any reporter, particularly one covering national security, to “run amok.”

But run amok Miller did and no one seemed to be willing to stop her. That has left the industry wondering, “Why wasn’t she stopped?” And this question will continue to dog and damage our industry until the Times answers.

The buck stops with the editor who must demand transparency in sourcing in order to provide readers with critical information.

Miller asserted that her case is being confused with the combustible issue of why we went to war in Iraq, arguably the fundamental foreign policy issue of our time.

Her defense of the inaccurate reporting on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction goes up like Harriett Miers’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. “My sources were wrong and so my reporting was wrong,” she told the Vegas crowd.

It was a preposterous statement to make to a roomful of journalists and serves to make her look like nothing more than a shill for her sources.

There were plenty who did question the Bush Administration’s assertions on WMD, as is evidenced by the number of links to those stories out on the blogosphere.

Miller may be able to pass that don’t-blame-the-messenger drivel on to the general public, but journalists preach and practice that you verify information provided by your sources before you go to print.

Miller knows better, and so does the Times.

There’s a reason journalists push for information—so that we get the story right. In the absence of answers, we’re left to question how the Times operates.

Did Miller have any kind of security clearance?

What were the conditions of that clearance?

Did her editors know and agree to those conditions?

Did she think her sources were talking to her or to the Times?

Has the Times articulated a clear policy on the ownership of reporters’ notes?

Didn’t Miller have an obligation to turn over what she knew to the reporter who replaced her on the national security beat?

In the absence of answers, The Gray Lady looks more like a charwoman covered in the soot of the Miller debacle than the stately newspaper of record.

© Copyright 2005 / Wendy A. Hoke

"News War" producer chats on WAPO

Raney Aronson, a producer at Frontline, was chatting online today at the Washington Post about the first episode of News War. Read the transcript to see some terrific questions. This one from Alexandria, Virginia, was particularly interesting:

"Your show touched on something that I've been wondering about for a long time and which I think is extremely important. You discussed the evolution of confidential sources from the early "whistleblower" types to today's constant and often unnecessary use by government types to "put out" info/their side of the story/impugn someone etc. It has struck me for a long time that the media developed a process a long time ago and everyone has become "media savvy" and knows how to use that process to their ends. Yet, the media does nothing differently. They continue down this path as if it was the only way to "journalistic truth". Why hasn't someone figured out a different way to tell the public what is happening? Doesn't it rankle them that they're being used constantly and not in the service of truth?"

Raney Aronson: "Well, I think that was at the heart of what Lowell Bergman cared about when reporting on this issue. It is definitely true that journalists get played - but then it's also true that the use of confidential sources are essential to our profession. John Miller (former journalist and now with the FBI) said something that struck a cord with me, he basically said because now that Branzburg was reaffirmed and if a federal grand jury in good faith asks a reporter for his/her sources a new conversation needs to start happening between reporters and their sources. The bar in other words for granting confidentiality should he argues be higher - and I absolutely agree with this assessment. For his interview go to our website."

Here's a question: What would happen if the Washington Press Corps just stopped granting government officials anonymity? Want to change the rules of the game, then make it so.

There's a lot of criticism fired at Frontline on the discussion board. But it's clear from reading transcripts of the extended interviews that you can't possibly get the full picture of what it's presenting without seeing those complete interviews.

If you want to pick one, try Ron Suskind.

More on Libby trial and journalists

Yesterday, Lucy Daglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press was on Washington Post online discussing the Libby Trial impact on journalism. Here's the transcript of that discussion.

She gives props (sort of) to MBA bloggers covering the trial in response to a question about why traditional media was not live-blogging the trial. Answer: because MBA was. That bodes well for MBA's credibility in covering such events in the future.

But the overall tone of her responses is still chummy—I know these people, they work very hard, their very competitive and busy, blah, blah, blah.

That was in no way as interesting as last night's brilliant Frontline program "News War." It was only part one of four, but the initial installment provided a comprehensive road map for how the media helped us to get where we are today. My boys were watching and asked the billion-dollar question: "So why did we go to war with Iraq?" That was followed by: "How do we get out?"

Part Two will be broadcast at 9 next Tuesday on PBS.

Must see TV

Don't miss the new Frontline Series News War beginning tomorrow night at 9 p.m. on PBS. Get a preview on the Web site, watch the trailer for a sampling of the many journalists interviewed and read background and supporting materials. Got an early taste of what to expect on Fresh Air tonight.