McClatchy this week published a major story that revealed lots of new information about an Iranian general, Qassem Suleimani, who is the head of Iran's Qods Force, which is believed to have supported terrorist groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian areas, Iraq and elsewhere. The story described how Suleimani has tried--sometimes succesfully--to outwit the United States in Iraq, through a combination of violence, intelligence-gathering, deal-making and influence.
Not surprisingly, the story generated a lot of reader comment. Much of it fell into two categories: the story over-relied on anonymous sources; and we at McClatchy were unwittingly helping make the case for U.S. military strikes on Iran.
This post is going to deal with issue A, anonymous sources. They've been a matter of debate and dispute within journalism, and between journalist and readers, for some time - more so in recent years due to reporting scandals at the New York Times, USA Today and elsewhere. Readers, we know from surveys and comments, hate the use of sources who won't put their names on the line.
McClatchy's Washington bureau maintains a strict policy on use of anonymous sources, which you can read here. Here are the highlights:
- The information has to be newsworthy, reliable and not otherwise available. A senior editor knows the true identity of the source.
- The information must be verified, almost always by having a second independent source.
- The source must be protected because he/she would be in physical danger or face harm to his/her livelihood. Anonymity won't be granted for conjecture, opinion or personal attacks.
The truth is, sometimes it is just not possible to write stories, particularly when it involves investigative matters or national security issues, without using information from people who do not, for very good reasons, want to be quoted by name in the newspaper (and now, on the Web). McClatchy and its predecessor, Knight Ridder, which are widely recognized to have been the only mainstream news organization to have consistently questioned the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq prior to March 2003, could not have produced that award-winning body of work had we been banned from using anonymous sources. The same goes for the award-winning coverage by our colleagues in Baghdad.
As to the Suleimani story, it quoted some significant sources by name, including Iraqi Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi; Ammar al Hakim, the son of a senior Iraqi Shi'ite political leader; and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad. We also reviewed numerous documents, including reports on Iran's influence in Iraq; Qods Force organization charts; Treasury Department listings and U.N. Security Council resolutions; and previous news articles on the subject.
But to get the whole story--and this story was in preparation for several weeks--we had to go to Iraqi officials who rightly feared for their political and personal safety if they were seen revealing inside information about a powerful Iranian general and Iran's behind-the-scenes relations with Iraq. The same was true of intelligence and counter-terrorism officials in Washington, who could be fired if their names appeared in the paper, but who had useful information to offer. As we report, we try to take our sources' motives and axes-to-grind into account and we debate the relative value of information every day, every hour.
We think the trade-off is worth it, and in this case, the use of anonymous source helped get more information into the public domain.
You were the only one smart enough to see Bush was doing the wrong thing around 2002-03.
You people are great and have our support 100% . Anonymous is OK with me for McClatchy although I do wonder with other so called news sources who claim it.
Keep up the great work.
Posted by: Brian | April 30, 2008 at 07:27 PM
Great job on posting your response to reader's commments; this is a excellent example of how interaction between writers and readers can improve the product.
If anyone deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt, it's you folks. You've demonstrated a track record of the skepticism journalists are supposed to have, regardless of how "serious" the source is.
I'm still concerned, however. In the article about the Iranian general, there was no voice saying something like, "Well, events there are so murky and everybody has an agenda, so maybe this guy is being built up as the next bogeyman". I know you don't want to undercut the thrust of your writing, but given the proven lack of truth in most of what comes out of this administration and the military, it seems awfully coincidental that suddenly the head of the Qods force, a designated "terrorist" organization, is the main guy behind everything in Iraq. Obviously, it could be true, but events have shown us that we mostly don't understand the dynamics of Iraq and that we're almost always being spun , misled or outright lied to by most of the people who will talk.
Readers have become increasingly skeptical about what they read and hear, and with good reason. It's clear the (and I hate this phrase) "mainstream media" have failed to tell us what's really going on in the world, that they've become captive to the people an organizations they cover and that they have a herd mentality that's truly breathtaking in its scope and power.
So, anything you can do to make us believe you would be good; anonymous sourcing, although inevitable, doesn't help, however. In your personal cases, you have credibility, at least to people with a memory that operates 5 years back. At least we're having this dialogue, which puts you head and shoulders above most of your peers.
Posted by: jrw | May 02, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Warren,
How do you (and your peers) judge "conjecture, opinion or personal attacks" for which the policy is no anonimity?
Curious Citizen
Posted by: Curious Citizen | May 02, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Curious Citizen: Thanks for the question. Like much about daily journalism, this is a judgement call we have to make all the time. The basic idea is not to let sources use the cover of anonymity to launch personal or partisan attacks. At the same time, if there is vital factual information which we can't get any other way, then anonymity might be granted. Obviously, there can sometimes be situations where facts and partisan attacks get mixed together.
This is a verbatim portion of our policy which addresses this question:
"We will not report anonymous personal or partisan attacks. We will not report speculation or opinion offered under the condition of confidentiality. We will not grant anonymity for non-vital comments or information. We will not promise to refrain from further reporting to seek comment or to verify the information. We will not mislead readers about anonymous sources, such as making them plural when only one source is quoted or saying that someone refused to comment when that person was an anonymous source."
Posted by: Warren | May 02, 2008 at 03:21 PM
jrw - Thanks for the comment. It is interesting - and different for someone who's been in this business 20 years! - to have this kind of dialogue with readers.
I think your comment is very insightful on several levels. Looking back, I think the article on Suleimani was very solid, but could have been improved by one solid paragraph of the cautionary sort that you suggest.
I would just add one last point. Obviously, we can't talk too much about sources or how we do our reporting (partly because my competition might read this!). But I would point out that this story was not thrust upon us by either US or Iraqi officials, urging us to write it. To the contrary, it was the idea of one of my editors, and a natural follow to the news (which McClatchy's Baghdad bureau chief, Leila Faedel, broke) that Suleimani had played a role in trying to broker an end to the Basra violence in March.
Best regards
Warren
Posted by: Warren | May 02, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Thanks, Warren, for the reply. I'd be curious to know what you all see coming in Iraq. It appears an outright civil war may be finally shaping up, but surprisingly, one between two Shia factions. If that's true, it also appears possible that the US and Iran will be backing the same side. Although maybe that will change by tomorrow.
Posted by: jrw | May 02, 2008 at 06:30 PM
Someone once said that you can find out a lot by reading the paper. Well, if not ours, perhaps Iraqi and other Gulf papers. There is a guy at http://arablinks.blogspot.com/
whose does this, translates and comments the important stories. I strongly urge anyone, anyone, who cares about these issues to follow his posts and translations. Revelatory. Really. Insightful, informed (actually), and to the point. Way beyond anything else on the web.
Posted by: G Hazeltine | May 04, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Talisman Gate unravels your account here:
http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2008/05/mcclatchy-news-agency-purposely.html
Care to respond? Retract?
Posted by: Flip | May 04, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Well, Mr. Flip, when the blog starts off by calling Landay and Strobel, "two activist reporters with a strong bias against the Iraq war.", it's hard to put much stock in the interminable word-by-word deconstruction that comes after.
Posted by: jrw | May 04, 2008 at 02:58 AM
It was a great story -- but sadly flawed as pointed out above by exaggerating Soleimani's role. I give you a B+.
Posted by: hass | May 04, 2008 at 08:53 AM
Warren,
Thanks for your answer. Just a follow-up, knowing that you must build your judgement on using anon sources based on your experience, how do you handle the situation where you learn that you are being used simply to transmit propaganda, personal or partisan attacks, and the like?
Do you simply stop using that source? Do you have a formal or informal "burn notice" regime to prevent future use of the source? Are you willing to sacrifice your access to pertinent information to your competitors?
As for your note that the IRGC story was not "thrust upon" you by (anonymous) government officials, how can readers like me know when this is not the case?
Thanks again for this insight into you and your colleagues work!
CC
Posted by: Curious Citizen | May 05, 2008 at 10:08 AM