Skip to main content

View Diary: Congratulations to ABC's Jon Karl (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Former print journalist here. There are (11+ / 0-)

    some notable exceptions, like Seymour Hersh (broke My Lai and other stories like it) and Thomas Ricks (who wrote the devastating book Fiasco). And the two McClatchy reporters (names escape me currently) who demolished the WMDs-in-Iraq bullshit before the invasion began.

    Broadcast journalism I don't think much of any longer.

    •  There are a lot of good reporters out there. (4+ / 0-)

      They don't play by the corporate rules so they don't end up on TV getting all the attention that they should.

      Meanwhile, the blow-dry contingent of actor/stenographers control the airwaves and much of the print and radio media now.

      Anyway, this Jonathan Karl story really deserves more than just a snarky diary.  He's really out there on the edge and it doesn't seem like he or ABC are inclined to correct their major error.  

      Bohelert on HuffPo raises a good question about why Karl doesn't reveal his source in light of the fact that the emails released from the White House prove that the information that Karl was provided and reported was so inaccurate. It is a good question.  The source has certainly become part of the story having provided such biased and misleading accounts of the contents of the emails.

      •  Well, if Karl promised his source confidentiality, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Faito, Nica24

        I suppose journalistic ethics require Karl to continue to honor that promise, even in the face of his source's bad faith.

        If Karl were to burn his source, he runs the risk of losing access to other whistle-blowers who are operating in good faith down stream.

        Just a guess. It does smack of a Rovian rat-fucking - leak information under promise of confidentiality, said information known to be wrong before being leaked. Then hold your journalist to his or her pledge of confidentialiaty, in the event your information is revealed to be so much bunk.

        •  It isn't unheard of for journalists (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Possiamo, Nica24, aitchdee

          to out a source that has been very misleading and or told them bald-faced lies.  The impact of the Karl story was not minor and there are a lot of people who have a stake in promoting the most negative interpretation of the Benghazi story - clearly this source was one of those people.

          So, let's just say for example Karl's source was some staffer in Darryl Issa's office.  Would that not in and of itself be relevant to the story unfolding here?  I think it would be very reasonable to report on that linkage when the information was clearly falsified.

          The GOP's response to the release of the emails has been to call for the release of more emails - more emails that don't exist?  More emails that they plan to fabricate and rewrite for public consumption?

          For Karl and ABC to consider this source as useful and important at this juncture casts a serious pall on their reputations, imo.

        •  Karl didn't have to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          reveal his source to report INITIALLY that he didn't actually see the emails...

    •  WP's Walter Pincus says (0+ / 0-)

      More and more the media have become simply carriers of administration statements, or carriers of critics of the administration statements.  They are no longer independent.  The former was certainly true in the selling of the Iraq war, and it's still true today.  The corporate media are pretty much useless.

      Was it Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel you were thinking of?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site