The "No One Is Contesting The Facts" Dodge
February 22, 2008 -- 1:03 PM EST // //
This is worth one more look, because you hear this journalistic defense constantly, whether the topic is Dems or Republicans. Call it the "no one is contesting the facts" dodge.
In a chat with readers today, New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson defended the big McCain-lobbyist story by saying this:
During the long process of our reporting on the story, we attempted, time and time again, to persuade our sources to go on the record and let us use their names. Again, there are named sources in the story but some sources continued to insist on maintaining the cloak of anonymity. As we neared publication, both the editors and the reporting team once again tested the veracity of these sources to make sure every fact in the story was accurate. We were all fully satisfied.Right, but the issue is not simply whether the individual facts, as rendered in the article, were accurate. Rather, the question is whether certain facts in the story should have been reported at all in their current form.
Let's be as clear as possible about this. Here are some key "facts" from the article:
Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself...according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.Even if this info is 100% true, there's still a problem here: The inclusion of the fact that some advisers worried that McCain might have had an affair suggests the possibility that he had an affair without settling the question of whether he actually had one or not.
This is the core issue. If you are going to report such anonymous worries about a possible romantic relationship, readers deserve a real effort to settle the question of whether it actually occurred. If you can't settle that question -- or if you can't share what you know its answer to be -- then suggesting that it might have happened is highly questionable. While it makes sense to evaluate such decisions on a case by case basis, this one was a clear call. So, no, saying that all the facts as rendered in the article were accurate just isn't a defense.
I'm bringing this up again because it's a line you hear constantly, and it's a dodge. And with that, this blog is finished with this topic.
The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.