By class time Friday, plesase read Hersh's article "Shifting Targets" and answer the following questions:
- How many anonymous sources does Hersh use? Does he describe them in a believeable way? Does he explain why they aren't speaking on the record? Do they seem to have good information? How do they affect his credibility?
- Does Hersh's story seem opinionated, or does it sound objective? Does he try to give both sides of debatable issues? Does he back up his claims with evidence? Can you determine from what he writes how careful his reporting was?
Some necessary background follows:
This week's flap. According to Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post (who is outspokenly critical of Bush), White House Press Secretary Dana Perino dismissed "questions about Hersh's piece from CNN's Ed Henry and CBS's Bill Plante." Froomkin quoted from the White House transcript of Tuesday's press briefing:
Perino: "Look, you know, I'm glad you brought it up. Every two months or so, Sy Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker magazine, and CNN provides him a forum in which to talk about his article and all the anonymous sources that are quoted in it."Two things are clear from this exchange. One is the White House is out to discredit Hersh. The other is the White House doesn't care for leaks.
Henry: "So the President --"
Perino: "The President has said that he believes that there is a diplomatic solution that we can use to solve the Iranian problem. And that's why we're working with our allies to get there."
Plante: "That's what he said before we went to Iraq, too."
Henry: "But what's the -- can you answer actually on the substance of whether or not the White House asked -- I mean, if it's not true, then you can say Sy Hersh is wrong and CNN was wrong to air it. You could say that, but --"
Perino: "We don't discuss such things, Ed."
Henry: " -- what about the substance of whether we --"
Perino: "We don't discuss such things. What we have said and what we are working towards is a diplomatic solution in Iran. What the President has also said is that as a President, as a Commander-in-Chief -- and any Commander-in-Chief -- would not take any option off the table. But the option that we are pursuing right now is diplomacy."
Henry: "But the article very specifically said that this summer in a video conference -- secure video conference with Ambassador Crocker, the President said that he was thinking about 'hitting Iran' and also --"
Perino: "I'm not going to comment on -- one, I don't know. I wouldn't have been at any -- at that type of a meeting. I don't know. I'm not going to comment on any possible -- any possible scenario that an anonymous source, you know, continues to feed into Sy Hersh. I'm just not going the do it."
Fromkin suggests a third, that Perino "refused to respond to any of the specific claims Hersh made in this week's New Yorker about White House support for a new path to war with Iran." However, if you read Froomkin very much, he has no use for Bush and he 's strongly opposed to Bush's conduct of the War on Terror.
Controversy over Hersh's reporting. Sy Hersh is no stranger to controversy -- or to the use of anonymous sources -- ever since he won the Pulitzer Prize in 1970 for reporting on the My Lai massacre and its coverup in Vietnam. Froomkin says Hersh "has a history of well-sourced, groundbreaking reporting." And that view is common within the profession. But Froomkin is hardly an unbiased observer.
So I'm linking the Wikipedia profile on Hersh. It clearly has been edited by people who have strong opinions about him, both for him and against him, but the nature of Wikipedia is to get into he-said, she-said counterpoint on controversial subjects. I'd read it more for the extremes of opinion, and seek balance elsewhere.
One lengthy, but balanced and detailed profile of Hersh appeared in The Columbia Journalism Review in 2003. It comes to 20 pages printed out (in a printer-friendly format no less!), but it's the best thing I've read on a very controversial and very important reporter.
15 comments:
Hersh uses 4 anonymous sources. They are all given very brief descriptions to provide anonimity. He does not say why they are off the record, but it is understandable due to the sensitive nature of the article (the difference between private and public information in the White House). They seem to have good information, but I think that the phrase "rat's ass" seems a little biased.
I think that he is a little biased in this article, but he sticks with facts, and quotes (though anonymous) so it works
Hersh uses up to 4 sources in his article. The anonimity is given briefly. Hersh never really went into detail why they were always off record for, it is really understandable why he is off the record for as you read through the story.
Hersh is really sticking to his facts as well as his quotes.
Hersh uses four anonymous sources with a very short believable description of there job title. This is so you will know the info is coming from a credible source. They seem to have good info even though this article seemed a little biased. You can tell that he had to be careful about what he wrote.
Hersh uses 4 anonymous sources. The way they are described is brief but to the point. it was never explained that they were off the record though. I found it easy to believe, but thats probably mostly because i trust my government about as much as the dark underlord himself. the article is very objective but its hard not to be objective with such a rediculous ass government that has been lying and killing and lying and lying so damn much. his evidence kinda relies on his anonymous sources, so the argument is somewhat weakened. but if this is a factual article, its scary, but very believable. i would like to think that someone would stop us from starting another pointless war.
I probably miscounted, but I found close to 10 anonymous sources. Regardless, Hersh says how the sources are involved in the story, without giving too much information, although he does not explain why they are anonymous.
The anonymous sources gave good information, and without it the article would have been a lot different (if not a lot shorter).
As far as the question on credibility goes, that is a little more difficult to answer. On the one hand, any student of journalism will be told not to use anonymous sources unless completely necessary. For Hersh to use as many as he does is a little excessive.
On the other hand, in the piece on Hersh, his editor said that he knows all of the anonymous sources Hersh uses in his stories. In that case, one of two things are going on: either a) Hersh's sources are ligit; or b) Hersh and his editor have been playing a trick on their readers for years now.
I think that Hersh was about as objective as he could be with his sources. Could he have been more objective? Sure; but then again, most journalists could be more objective. A lot of his "evidence" depends on the anonymous sources, so the skeptics might think that his claims are not backed up well.
Hersh used a few anonymous sources. I believe that they were very creditable. I think that because the 'given sources' were pretty credible, his other sources had to be just as reliable. I believe that with a topic that is so sensitive, one can't help but be subjective. One the other hand I think that Hersh did a pretty nice job of keeping the story objective. He is a careful writer, and he gave both sides to the issue.
Hersh uses quite a few [too many] anonymous sources for his article, and while they are described in a sense, it's not in any meaningful way ("a former senior intelligence official" isn't telling me much. You know...just how former is this person?).
Each source definitely has an opinion, or something to say, about the current administation and potential plans to strike Iran. But a few of them sound pretty biased one way or the other ("But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”).
Anonymous sources, in the end, make the author and his article less credible.
And ultimately, if it's between trusting the government and trusting this guy, I'll just be safe and trust neither.
Obviously, as everyone said, Hersch used anonymous sources. Also, I think Hersch is biased in his views. He wants to hide these sources, so he won't use their names...which begs the question, how credible and reliabe are these? I don't know, but it makes for great reader, at least. However, I don't know who to trust when reading this. In the way he writes, he seems believable, but he maybe putting one over on us reading this...it could just all be made up! He could be letting his views and feelings act as the made "anonymous sources" and just be saying all this...but like I said, I don't know.
Hersh used 4 anonymous sources in his article he wrote. It was believable that the sources were reliable and were good for the info given to Hersh. However, he makes the reader believe what he is saying is exactly true. he manipulates the article to be bias but not really getting into any trouble by doing so. The quotes from the sources are the parts that make the reader believe his article and take his views on the subject matter.
Hersh used 4 anonymous sources: "senior CIA official," "former high-level intelligence official," "military analyst," "government consultant" and "Pentagon consultant."
The information that came from the sources did not go into much detail about the converstation that took place between Hersh and the anonymous sources. He does describe the sources in a believable way...but isn't that his job? When any reporter gets information he/she has the power to spin it any way they chooses. Hersh already has good credibility so I dont really believe that him using anonymous sources has the ability to affect him. Especially when the New Yorker chooses to run his article and supports him 100%
His article does sound objective but again that is his ultimate goal with the story. I dont really believe that any true journalist wants to look completely one sided and biased about any particular topic. The evidence that he gives is slim but he is at least saying something that is going to catch many readers attention.
Hersh uses about 4 or 5 anonymous sources in his article but does not go into much detail about them.
I don't really know how credible his sources are or he as a writer. I suppose if I have read more or his articles before this one and had a sence of his writing style then I would be able to have a better opinion.
The sources seem credible but I don't know how much other readers would keep reading his articles.
I believe Hersh used about 4 anonymous sources. He could have done a better job at letting the reader know why the sources were anonymous because it forces the reader to want more information. Are the names being protected for political reasons? Is the information even true? What's the motivation of the sources? The sources gave good information but their anonymity definitely affected Hersh's credibility.
Although Hersh provides information for both sides, there is still a bias undertone in this article. There was not much evidence either way though.
Hersh uses at least four anonymous sources. I do think he describes them in a believable way and he does not explain why they are speaking off the record. I think that they have good information, although some of it is more opinionated. He does give both sides of these debatable issues, but it is obvious that he is relaying his opinion to be more accurate. I think Hersh seems less credible to the reader because he uses too many anonymous sources. I did not think he backed up his opinion with much evidence. In the end he was careful by presenting both sides of the issues and by using anonymous sources.
Hersh uses 4 anonymous sources is his story. While he gives a brief description to provide their anonimity, I think the fact that he used at 4 discredits his name. I believe that there are times when you must use sources who want to remain anonymous. However, to use 4 or more in one story is too much. When people read stories, they want to be able to believe that what they are reading is true. If they are reading much of what is cited as coming from an "anonymous" source, then how can they truly believe that what they are reading is true?
Post a Comment