Liza
Eric V. Kirk wrote:
>
> Well, what is he supposed to do if a source does not want to be made public?
> The vast majority of news stories depend on anonymous sources, and it's a
> matter of whether your trust the writer and editor in judging the credibility
> of the source.
>
> Yours,
>
> Eric
>
> rayrena wrote:
>
> > Liza Featherstone wrote, re: Hitchens' claims in Salon:
> >
> > >And boy does he not substantiate it! He says it "was leaked". brilliantly
> > >vague
> > >sourcing. Does he mean it was just leaked to him?
> >
> > This is all very lame, because a) it's one of those things that I *really*
> > want to believe; and b) Hitchens does not have to resort to fictionalizing
> > or to unsubstantiated claims--that Clinton kowtows to whatever interests
> > serve his own at that particular moment is obvious and well-known. Why
> > resort to psuedo-investigative-reporting techniques ("was leaked," "sources
> > say," etc.) when just repeating the obvious over and over is more
> > effective, especially from someone occupying Hitchens' rather lofty
> > position? Vague claims like "was leaked" only cheapen Hitchens' sentiment.
> >
> > And here is a piece with a similar theme from last week's Village Voice:
> > http://www.villagevoice.com/columns/9902/cotts.shtml
> >
> > Press Clips by Cynthia Cott
> >
> > Why ruin a good story with the truth? That's the credo of
> > many journalists, who would gladly downplay accuracy
> > and fairness for entertainment value. They rarely cop to
> > that standard, but you don't have to look far to see it in
> > action. Case in point: last week, Christopher Hitchens
> > and Matt Drudge peddled stories that sounded good at
> > first, but fell apart under scrutiny.
> >
> > [snip, the Drudge part]
> >
> > Christopher Hitchens began
> > his column in the January 11-18 issue of the Nation
> > with a little behind-the-scenes gossip about Henry
> > Kissinger. The scene: at a party two years ago, a Nation
> > colleague was introduced to Kissinger, who growled,
> > "The Nation? So I suppose that to you I am a war
> > criminal?" Nervous laughter ensued. When the leftie
> > pointed out that, these days, the Nation was just as likely
> > to call Clinton a war criminal, Kissinger deadpanned:
> > "Mr. Clinton does not have the strength of character to
> > be a war criminal."
> >
> > It's a great story, beloved by journalists of all stripes. The
> > Nation's Eric Alterman tells it often, as does New York
> > Press publisher Russ Smith, a/k/a Mugger. Indeed,
> > Smith helped put the story in play, misquoting it first in
> > his New York Press column of January 6-12 and then in
> > the short version of his January 8 column in the online
> > Jewish World Review (headline: "DRUDGE IS THE HERO").
> >
> > Only one problem, boys: Dr. Kissinger denies it. Through
> > a spokesperson, he told Press Clips that the first quote
> > attributed to him is correct, but the second is not, and
> > the Nation never checked the story with him.
> >
> > Ironically, the Nation published the Kissinger quip in the
> > same issue as a Jonathan Schell editorial called "Land
> > of Dreams" in which Schell laments the rise of a "new
> > media machine" whose primary purpose is to entertain.
> > One of the machine's characteristics is its preference for
> > fantasy over reality, thereby giving journalists the
> > "capacity to mistake a world of their own making for the
> > real one."
> >
> > Nation editor in chief Katrina vanden Heuvel says, "We
> > stand by the story," and notes that Kissinger was speaking
> > in jest.