More on the rules of attribution

<![CDATA[A question was raised in email about my comment that the rules of attribution are a problem for journalists, not just bloggers. Did I not understand that sources need to be protected? Let me explain….
I don’t think protecting a source is a problem, in fact it is often a necessity and the only way to get a story that must be told and is hidden because of the source’s fear of retribution.
The problem is that sources have begun dictating when they can be cited as a matter of course. For example, the press regularly attends briefings held by unnamed officials. This is a silly function for the press to perform, since everyone in the room and many other people know exactly who the source is. This is the press playing at being the telegraph for foreign policy.
So, the other day on The West Wing when Josh picked up the phone and said “This is an off-the-record conversation” before launching into a screed against the “blogger” on the line, it is an example of the presumption that sources can shoot their mouths off before the journalist has set the terms of engagement. That’s a mistake. Journalists should never let the source dictate the terms of a discussion. They should negotiate, but they should not take dictation under terms dictated by a source.
I have had a White House official launch a fusillade at me in voice mail about a story I wrote; I did not report the call, because we were friends. That’s a judgment call based on my desire to maintain the relationship.
That same source, in a follow-up to his screed, tried to lie to me and got a source under contract to the U.S. government to change their story (they flew the poor SOB to the White House and made him sit on the phone and lie to me, presumably to keep his job). They wanted that conversation on background and I refused to talk to them, so they went on the record—it didn’t go well for them, but at that point they’d dug their own hole and had to stand in it. If I’d gone along with their rules of engagement, I’d have been required to pass along the lie without being able to challenge the falsified facts being handed to me on background, which means that I could only say “White House sources disputed our previous report.”
Now that some journalists deride bloggers because they don’t know the rules of attribution and how to play them, I have to laugh, because they almost invariably are poor journalists used to taking dictation from unnamed sources. We can all be journalists, but we all have to recognize how that changes the rules, not just who has to follow them and when. Professionalism should not be equated with following rules, but knowing how and when to apply them, as well as the consequences of those decisions.]]>