The blogosphere has been questioning the "sources" of ABC New/Ross reporting of the anthrax scare back in 2001. ABC News/Ross reported falsely that (1) the anthrax contained Bentonite and (2) this showed it came from Iraq.
But the issue is much bigger than that. Glenn Greenwald, the Salon magazine blogger, has taken the lead on this issue. But he became rather vehement when I challenged the basis for his main concern: there is NO evidence that ABC News/Ross ever had any sources.
The larger issue is that ABC News/Ross sensationalized this concocted story in order to obtain money, and there is every evidence that they did so fraudulently.
Ironically, I received a subscription solicitation in the mail this morning from the Columbia Journalism Review before I was directed to an essay on the CJR website by Justin Peters after hopping from Glenn Greenwald's blog (via Rosen's blog link to TVNewser).
There are only two facts involved in the ABC News/Ross Anthrax case.
- The anthrax came from a U.S. laboratory (either military or Battelle).
- ABC News/Ross stated that it came from Iraq.
Everyone seems to be focusing on whether their sources did this or that. I say the sources are irrelevant. There is a crucial difference. The difference revolves around whether your conception of journalism is fact-free or fact-based. By that, I mean, ABC News/Ross cannot absolve itself of responsibility by claiming faulty sources. One might have some absolution if it were proven that they were deliberately conned, ala Chalabi, but even then it would be minimal.
Simply put, in my opinion, a news reporter vouches for his/her sources. The news reporter has an obligation to confirm what the sources tell him/her. A professional journalist should not, under any circumstances, claim the right to irresponsibly quote anyone on any topic. The journalist CHOOSES who to quote and then presents this quote to support the veracity of his/her story. It is the journalist telling the story, the journalist has the byline, the journalist gets the money, the journalist gets the prizes. The journalist is responsible all along the line.
The anthrax story provides a very good example: there was a chain of logic that connected a stepping stone trail of faux facts. The anthrax was real, that was a fact. But the anthrax could have contained grape jelly, it did not. But ABC New/Ross reported it contained Bentonite, it did not. Why Bentonite? Why didn't ABC News/Ross report grape jelly? It would seem to me they CHOSE Bentonite because it provided a stepping stone to another purported fact that Bentonite meant Iraq was the source.
Was that even true? Does Iraq put Bentonite in its anthrax to identify its brand and nobody else in the world can do this? Would it not be obvious that if Bentonite were a signature of Iraq then anyone could put Bentonite in the sample to spoof Iraq? Does it not seem more logical that all of the ABC News/Ross story was concocted? Including the sources?
But all of the media are defending ABC News/Ross because they had SOURCES. Magic incantation that turns lead into gold! Sources! They were Sourcerers so what they claim cannot be challenged!
But in my opinion, ABC New/Ross wasn't reporting on sources. It was selling a sensational story that required an illogical chain of faux facts.
The facts were false: there was no Bentonite, and it was not proof that it came from Iraq. What I suggested to Greenwald that he became so vehement about was that there is NO evidence, none, that ABC News/Ross even had any sources. They claim the sources are "anonymous" but I don't believe in ghosts.
CJR, and Rosen and Greenwald are missing the vital point that ABC New/Ross sensationalized this story for the purpose of obtaining money and there is every evidence that they did so fraudulently. There was no Bentonite, and it did not prove it came from Iraq, and there is no evidence that there EVER were any sources. Those are the only relevant facts.
Even IF there were sources, they were chosen by Ross: whether they were chosen or concocted, they were HIS sources. They have no independent relevance to this story. The only relevant point is that ABC News/Ross sensationalized this illogical chain of faux facts in order to fraudulently obtain money.
The sources are not relevant, it is the concocted chain of illogic linking faux facts. If ABC News/Ross had reported that the anthrax contained Bentonite, whether false or not, it would have had minor potential import. People might have debated whether it meant it came from Iraq. But that is not what ABC News/Ross did. They packaged a sensationalized concocted story in order to fraudulently obtain money.
The story, the onus, and the spotlight belongs on ABC News/Ross. They cannot turn lead into gold by claiming sources. A journalist vouches for his/her sources in the same way any vendor has an "implied warranty" on a product it sells. That is what everyone seems to be missing.
This is the problem: journalism is slipping into that corrupt realm where anything goes as long as it makes money. This new journalism is fact-free; what only counts is whether I get money, or status I can convert into money. This poisonous idea is that the duty of the journalist is to sensationalize a story and it is irrelevant if the facts are faux or fallacious. ABC News/Ross must be respected because they have money. No one questions the fraud perpetrated.
And why not? Why doesn't the journalistic community call ABC News/Ross on the fraud? Why didn't the CJR critique even mention it? The public has a simple conclusion thrust upon it: journalists don't reveal it because fraud is the game. Does a magician reveal the fraud of his/her performance? NO, because it is that very lack of revelation that provides the source of his fortune.
Come to think of it, when have you seen any major news organization feature a story debunking another major news organization? Recent history is replete with opportunities. The concocted Clinton White Water scandal comes to mind. There have been a few noteworthy examples by Knight-Ridder reporters debunking the Bush administration's accounts while other media trumpeted the administration's accounts, but never questioning the other media. Consider the media's unquestioned use of military experts with hopeless financial conflicts.
These were all revealed by bloggers! And so the world has shifted to one where FACTS are found in the blogging world where their game is to reveal the fraud in the journalistic game. Looking for the Daily Howler, to cite one example. And so they want me to subscribe to CJR where I might discover, what? How to ignore fraud? How to really believe in magic? Lead really can be converted to gold?
I don't think so.