#Weinergate, Sources & Journalistic Ethics
[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]
The issue of ‘journalistic ethics’ came up a number of times over the course of the #Weinergate story and even thought Weiner resigned today, the story may not be over. After all, the John Edwards story is still in process years after it started. So, let’s talk about some of the Journo-ethical issues in the ‘underage girl’ aspect of Weinergate.
In prepping for this article, I did some research on Journalistic Ethics and I found the exact question I’m dealing with at the very bottom of Wikipedia’s article on the subject. It’s from a list of ethical questions that were called into a “Ethics Hotline”…
Can a journalist reveal a source of information after guaranteeing confidentiality if the source proves to be unreliable?
That’s the question – and there’s not one and only one possible answer. Let’s get specific.
I never spoke to either ‘Ethel’ – the underage girl in Delaware that former Rep. Weiner was having private chats with. I never spoke to her mother, either. But I did speak to a number of reporters who spoke with Ethel’s mom, who requested confidentiality – a request they all granted. I haven’t seen a quote that’s officially from Ethel or her mother. Based on my conservations with people who spoke to the mother, though, I can tell you one thing for sure.
Ethel’s mother gave false information to the press, which they passed along to the public.
Did she give intentionally false information? I can’t say for sure but there are absolutely things that are part of the public record now that aren’t correct and they weren’t given with attribution. The circumstances surrounding what Ethel’s mother knew and when she knew it have been muddled. Ethel’s own conduct has been explained incorrectly or in confusing ways.
I think that if you decide to talk to reporters, you shouldn’t hide behind confidentiality as a way of covering up holes in your story. Personally, I believe that when the source mangles the basic facts of the story you’re researching, they’ve lost some of their expectation of privacy.
Without getting into details for the moment, I’m curious about hearing people’s response to this issue. What do you think?
– Lee Stranahan
What I think is this: As long as there is a living successor to journolist out there (which obviously there is) to coordinate themes and zero in on specific talking points while studiously avoiding other topics– it is futle to even discuss “journalistic ethics”. Because there are none.
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 5:40 pmLee,
I disagree, because we can’t rely on the reporter to trust his or her judgement as 100% correct (they don’t know everything!) … but the reporter should then prominently report that he has doubts about his source, what, and why.
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 5:45 pmI wish there were more pressure on reporters who see the story being reported wrong to get out there and make sure the record is corrected.
(You might want to check out Howie Kurtz on Eliot Spitzer just now. He said “New York Media” kept the story alive. I am beginning to think the man never reads a blog aside from Kos, or any tweets sent his way. I have never seen him respond to a Tweet, and in this story it would have helped himO
MayBee (081489) — 6/16/2011 @ 5:52 pmThere was a quote that was officially from Ethel’s mother, in the NY Post. I sort of doubt she gave them permission to quote her that directly, but they did. And they said that she said there were only 2 DMs. And that she had to trust her daughter’s word that there had never been any dirty DMs.
And I have already pointed out that Weiner admitted at least five. And the family eventually admitted five, to the NYT, and claimed to describe them in full detail.
Five is not two.
But Ethel’s mother told the NY Post “two” on Wednesday, you see. My posts came out Thursday. And then, there was an admission of (at least) five.
I have already pointed all that out, because it was all based on public information. I’m not sure it matters much more to Weiner’s fate . . . but it matters to how the press portrays things.
I believe more than one reporter in this affair spoke to a young girl (I’m not just talking about Ethel) and concluded that the girl they were speaking to was a “good kid.” And that, therefore, if they discovered falsehoods being told by that kid, they were going to hide those falsehoods.
Unless revealing the falsehoods would help Weiner, of course.
I know much more than I can tell and I am furious about the way the press has handled this story. They knew things that would have changed the way the story was perceived and they DELIBERATELY chose not to publish them.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:00 pmHas Senor Kurtz yet admitted how fracking wrong wrong wrong he has been on just this story?
JD (85b089) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:01 pmPatterico, if you know so much, why can’t you publish them?
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:07 pmRemember: the NYT in the same story described the initial picture as a picture of Weiner in his underwear. The notion that the picture was of an erect penis was omitted.
The same story omitted the fact that the profile Weiner referenced in a direct message said the girl loved “marching band.”
The same story botched the quote “I came on strong. Large. In charge. Tights and cape shit.” And converted it to “I came on strong. Large. Tights and cape. …”
“In charge” was airbrushed out, and there was a period immediately after “cape” to imply no word followed. And so it was quoted by countless media publications who, like a herd of idiot sheep, parroted the botched quote from the NYT instead of quoting it accurately from, say, my site.
They eventually (after I brought it to the reporter’s attention, frankly) removed the period immediately after the word “cape” to allow for the possibility that there might have been another word in that sentence. But the nature of the missing word? The fact that it was a profanity from a 46-year-old Congressman to a 17-year-old high school junior?
Yeah, the Times readers were never told that.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:09 pmConfidentiality. I keep my word.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:10 pm==I wish there were more pressure on reporters who see the story being reported wrong to get out there and make sure the record is corrected==
So true. But first, the reporters have to realize it is being reported wrong –which in their bubble (like Kurtz) they usually miss. Then, they have to be willing to go off the reservation and either admit that they themselves misreported, or that one of their buddies did. The idea of the lone wolf reporter off in search of a scoop and trying to out-investigate a rival reporter is almost dead, although there are a few remaining vestiges of it yet to be found in the blogosphere.
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:10 pmI don’t get this whole confidentiality thingie when people are being dishonest.
JD (306f5d) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:14 pmPatterico–
The others parrot the NYT because it is still, by many, considered to be the paper of record. You need to change the header language of PP to say “The Blog of Record”. Then maybe you’ll get the respect you deserve.
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:21 pmIt’s not absolute. I think someone’s dishonesty has to be pretty extreme to justify breaking confidentiality, but it can happen.
In the past several days, there was one person whom I suspected was planning to publish something that misrepresented the nature of our private exchanges. I explained to that person that, if they lied about our private conversations, I would consider that a waiver and I would publish the whole thing.
There are similar concepts in the law. For example, if a criminal defendant tries to get out of a conviction by alleging that he received incompetent advice from his lawyer, he waives the confidence of the attorney-client relationship. I have handled numerous habeas matters in which the defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel. The first thing I did as a prosecutor was to get a declaration from the lawyer about what their advice truly was. Invariably, they said the defendant was lying about the nature of the advice that the lawyer had given. They were absolutely entitled to say what they had told their client — and what their client had told them! — because of the waiver.
The person I issued the warning to has not lied about our conversations (yet) and so I have not divulged our communcations. If they did lie, it would not be a breach of my promise to do so. It would be a waiver on their part.
I have had other people lie to me — or, let’s say, give me false information — in confidence during this scandal . . . and I have decided not to reveal the lies. There is an aspect to this that is frustrating, but I worry that if I seem eager to throw aside promises of confidentiality willy-nilly, people will not trust me in the future. It would take an extreme example of dishonesty to cause me to cast aside a solemn promise of confidentiality. First and foremost, I would want the person to understand it really wasn’t me breaking the promise . . . it was they who broke the understand by lying.
Lee raises a tough and interesting issue in this post, and I think there are some gray areas. It’s a worthy topic of debate.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:25 pmJD has it right. The source and reporter enter into a contract. The source provides information and attests to its accuracy. The reporter promises to not reveal the source’s name.
If it turns out the source knowingly provides false information, the reporter is released from his vow of confidentiality. The reporter isn’t obligated to reveal the source’s name; whether he does so is up to him (and his editors).
steve (254463) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:28 pmThat’s a good point, Patterico. But doesn’t that raise a situation where what I said in my first comment:
“I disagree, because we can’t rely on the reporter to trust his or her judgement as 100% correct (they don’t know everything!) … but the reporter should then prominently report that he has doubts about his source, what, and why.”
… would be appropriate? Without revealing the source’s identity?
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:29 pmsteve,
I agree with that concept. However, in a case where I did not report the false information to begin with, it is a judgment call whether to declare the contract broken. And you don’t want people concluding that you would make such declarations lightly.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:29 pmRandom:
I believe it is a different matter entirely when you have reported facts based upon the source. The need to correct the facts becomes paramount.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:30 pmAh you didn’t necessarily report the false info.
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:31 pmIf it were up to Roger Ailes this whole thing would have blown itself out a week ago and Anthony would be sitting pretty.
There’s something deeply unethical about that. Fox News is to news what Anthony Weiner is to good taste I think.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:32 pmHasn’t this exercise, proven the point that there is no such thing as journalistic ethics, and not only is it dead, there’s not a prospect of going
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:37 pmzombie.
Does getting the truth into the public sphere not trump almost everything else? Being a lawyer may raise confidentiality issues for Patterico because he is so used to working under attorney/client privilege. But unless I am mistaken there is no attorney/client privilege with respect to his investigative work on this story. If baring “the truth” is important in that it exonerates someone who is being maligned or lied about, or it exposes someone who is being unduly protected, then it seems that it should come out. If the truth is more nits that are merely annoying then maybe not.
Patterico, why do you feel you have an obligation to respect someone who you clearly believe did not respect you?
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:46 pmLee and Patterico,
With all of the focus upon what Ethel’s parents knew about her tweets, you would think the parents would have noticed that their daughter had tweeted about drinking with a teacher which she tweeted that she had a crush on.– See Prudence’s site post on the tweet transcripts. I don’t have the link on hand. Prudence and I had the same reaction to the tweet.
How in the world could they have missed it? If they did notice it they must have approached the school about the matter. If not,
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:47 pmthen I wonder if Ethel’s mother ever bothered to read the entire record of her tweets. These parents have very selective attention.
I think that the information is going to come out.
Info does not always come out. I am not that fatalistic. But I have seen almost no cases where the information starts to come out (as it has here) and where people obviously know more than is being reported (as it is here) where the information does not eventually come out. Maybe someone can give an example.
There is a big hesitation, where a lot of equivocation is done regarding journalistic ethics, just like here (and I am not meaning this as a slam at you- I did not say that this whole song and dance is bad for ‘we the people’).
Eventually, someone decides to make a career for themselves. Or someone gets drunk and accidentally gives a true activist enough for them to prove things. Or someone who wants to get it out but not be the one to do it goes all pseudonymy.
The info will come out. The question is- do you want to avoid being the one to let it out, because you don’t want to be known that way? Or because you don’t want to lose access to potential future information, should it be known that you were the one to let it out? Or should you take advantage of it? Or push your agenda?
Now, replace the ‘you’ in the above paragraph with each and every single person who knows the behind-the-scenes stuff you know that is being talked about but not reported.
Yes, the truth will come out. The math makes it inevitable.
Enigmaticore (491183) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:47 pmI doubt Patterico actually respects the person, but he is torn because it’s not good business to easily out sources over a lie, since new sources would then be hard to come by.
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:51 pmbmertz,
Here is the link to the tweets from Ethel in timeline:
http://prudencepaine.com/2011/06/14/weiner-and-the-teen/
Joe
Joe Smith (54c0c1) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:57 pmAbsolutely,
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:58 pmOnce the word got out, your reputation would be dust. No one would trust you.
Joe
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:00 pmthanks guy- I didn’t have it with me.
The issue with promises is that if you make one, its your job to keep it, regardless of what the other party does. A way around it is to make the agreement such that if it is found to be false or unreliable, that confidentially goes away. If they aren’t willing to go with that, it would heighten suspicions in my opinion.
Breaking a promise tells people about you, not the person you made the promise to.
I like Megan’s take on the subject of social agreements: Is it ok to steal from Macy’s?
Jeff Mitchell (481f2a) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:00 pmstealing is wrong it’s in the Bible
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:02 pmI was going to post the tweets on teacher I noted earlier, but I am feeling a check about it. I’m upset at Ethel’s airhead parents, but
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:09 pmI don’t want to put more focus on a kid. if you are concerned about the teacher’s behavior, the post is in the first part of her tweets prior to Rep. Perv;’s invasion of her life. Joe just posted the link.
Is the question here whether or not to out Ethel and her mom because they gave out false information? If there’s not more to it–and I admit, I have not been following all the ins and outs–then I would say the answer is a resounding “No.”
Because it doesn’t matter. Weiner is out. These private citizens, who did nothing to bring this down on themselves, don’t deserve to have their names exposed because they lied to the press. Their daughters are underage schoolgirls, and don’t deserve to be exposed regardless of what they did on twitter. What would be the point? To embarrass some reporters who should have known better?
Not worth it, IMHO.
JohnW (527726) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:12 pmI made the decision a while back that I would not reveal Ethel’s real name. She is a minor and does not deserve that.
As for what else I am talking about — I can’t say more.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:18 pmThis discussion is reminiscent of college late night bull sessions.
==it’s not good business to easily out sources over a lie==
Well, what the heck good is a source if that source is lying to you? Or maybe is trying to use you or test you?
==since new sources would then be hard to come by==
Or, OTOH, maybe you’d get a reputation for always and only telling the truth and more and even better sources would be drawn to you as a person who can help them get their facts and truthful stories out.
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:19 pmSo who provided the gym photos to TMZ?
SusanT (355042) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:32 pmGlorious and I are Psychologists. We are both bound by doctor-patient confidentiality rules.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:37 pmYeah, minors can’t make certain types of major binding contracts. So their breaking them is of little ethical or or least legal importance. I think that’s rather the point of the designation “minor”.
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:42 pmmaybe you’d get a reputation for always and only telling the truth and more and even better sources would be drawn to you as a person who can help them get their facts and truthful stories out.
Actually, I think Patterico already has this reputation. And if he were to reveal “Ethel’s” true identity after promising not to, that reputation would be instantly undone.
It benefits no one to know who she is except may Patterico and that would only be to give a sense of satisfaction and proof he was telling the truth, and that the NYT and others were whitewashing. But he can’t reveal it – not even for that reason. That’s the tough irony.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:42 pmThe Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
I haven’t been a member for years, so I don’t know if it matters anymore.
Ag80 (1bc637) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:46 pmOver the past 20 or so years I have had ocassions to see matters reported on in the press that I had first hand information about – in fact, I had most of the non-public information.
ON things I learned from this experience very early on — reporters generally have little or no background on the subject matter about which they are writing. THis often leads them to report things in an inaccurate manner based on unwarranted conclusions.
One of the biggest problems is that they work against the clock — deadlines looming. Many don’t have the option of reporting to their editor “I don’t have it yet, let’s save it until tomorrow.” Instead they go forward and report based on what they know, filling in gaps with supposition and conjecture.
My experience is that a general news report produced under deadline might get about 50% of the basic facts correct. More complicated or nuanced matters are almost always incorrect.
So, when you say that the girl’s mother gave inaccurate information to the press, you begin with an unwarranted assumption — that the press was able to accurately understand and then communicate what it was they were told.
Second, it may very well be the case that the mother was providing information which she had been given that was inaccurate or incomplete, while being unaware of that fact. She herself may have engaged in conjecture or supposition, but passed those along as facts to the reporters.
I always pause when I hear an allegation made that a citizen has “lied” to a member of the press. In my experience, that gives the members of the press undeserved credit for being able to accurately recount what they have been told.
shipwreckedcrew (bafbcb) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:46 pmDana, based on what Patterico stated earlier I’m pretty sure the issue of revealing Ethel’s real name is not what we and he are debating or anguishing over here. (although who knows what we are debating and anguishing over, heh!)
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:50 pmHere is an utterly startling post from lefty journalism professor John F. Kirch (check out his blogroll) saying Weinergate was an “embarrassment” to the media. Not because they were slow on the story — but because they were too aggressive.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (778ae1) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:55 pmLee,
If it only involved the parents and if they were not your source, and you never gave a promise of confidentiality; then how would you be held to that agreement? I would out them for lying to the media.
However, they are not alone; there is Ethel, a minor child. There would be no forgiveness if your actions caused harm to Ethel. Your reputation would be damaged and you would be branded as a harasser of children. Ethel is being used as a privacy shield over the actions of both Weiner and her parents.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:59 pmWith all due respect, Patterico, I’m not seeing that as something suitable for humor. People have died of malice because of terrorist bombs, and Congress has been targeted before.
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:01 pmWrong post, sorry.
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:02 pmelissa @ 40,
Sorry for the interruption…
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:08 pmBoth absolutely true. That is why I try to qualify my statements by saying “if what the NY Post reports is accurate …” I may not have always remembered to say that, but it is definitely a caveat to consider.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:08 pm
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:09 pmSounds like something Tommy might try to pull off
Just as any criminal deal with a person elocuting to a crime is entirely subject to a truthful and complete elocution, so too is any deal with a journalistic source. I have had sources lie to me in the past and I had no compunction whatever giving them up to my editor.
Basically, when one acts outside of the law, one loses the protection of the law. For me, one who knowingly games a journalist, lose any protections that may have been proferred or accepted.
Ed from SFV (64542f) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:09 pmBrother Bradley, if the author of that article you linked truly believes that Weiner making blatantly false accusations about Breitbart, and telling bald faced lies of denial straight and aggressively in the faces of the top DC reporters “had nothing to do with his public life or his ability to perform his duty as a congressman”, there really is no hope for our society.
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:20 pmPatterico,
Are you concerned that Weiner may dig himself out of his political grave once the dust settles? Are Ethel’s missing tweets essential to nail the coffin lid down on Weincula?
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:27 pmBrother Fikes:
I followed you link and posted this in his comments. Of course my comment was placed in moderationas you can see:
“Please Note: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The object of journalism is to tell the truth. An elected official was caught doing an action that some may consider inappropriate and the media did what it is supposed to do.
Then he lied repeatedly to journalists. Should journalists not question a lie? The man in question is a powerful member of government. If he lies about his picadillos, what is to say he will not lie about his sworn duty?
Your supposition is that the powerful can lie and be allowed the lie as long as his constituents are satisfied with the lie
I don’t think you know what journalism means. And yet, you seem, somehow, to be a journalism instructor.
What an odd world we live in.”
I suspect it will not survive moderation.
Ag80 (1bc637) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:39 pmelissa,
I think there is hope, because most of society is not so firmly in the tank for the left as the media and journalism professors.
With the decline in legacy media influence, there’s room for ideological diversity among new media insurgents such as Breitbart. That gives the more thoughtful members of old media motivation to change their ways.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (778ae1) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:42 pmAg80,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (778ae1) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:43 pmI’ll watch and see what happens with your comment. Either way, the outcome will be instructive.
==I think there is hope, because…==
Brother Fikes–
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 9:09 pmThanks for reeling me down. I hope you are right that a course correction is still possible. What worries me is that it seems to go beyond just being in the tank. It appears that many people have forgotten what the words honor, and integrity, and duty, and personal responsibility even mean. In the not too distant past exhibiting those characteristics was considered optimal both for elected officials and the citizenry. Now?
In response to post 41, my point is that the media lost all sense of perspective when it blew the Weiner story out of proportion. The news media’s job is to report the story and then allow events to occur. In this case, like many others, the media drove the story. Reporters violated a key tenant of journalism in that reporters should not influence how events play out.
John Kirch (4f11b7) — 6/16/2011 @ 9:38 pmYou make me sick. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no idea the pain this has caused me and I could never even wish any of this pain on you or anyone in your family. But if it makes you happy to keep writing false stories about me, please continue. Your sick readers and fans will eat it up.
Ethel (e8873f) — 6/16/2011 @ 9:50 pmOK. I’ll grant you the Allred press conference, was over the top, but what did the media, drive the story, a fair part of it, was obfuscating, denying, transferring the responsibility to other parties.
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/16/2011 @ 9:51 pmJohn:
Kind of like Mark Foley then?
Ag80 (1bc637) — 6/16/2011 @ 9:54 pmEthel:
Sockpuppet day is tomorrow, unless you’re in the eastern or central time zones.
Ag80 (1bc637) — 6/16/2011 @ 10:10 pm==reporters should not influence how events play out=
Mr Kirch-
I think maybe Bernstein and Woodward (as well as the Pulitzer committee and Richard Nixon) might disagree with you on that. Just sayin’. The investigative journalism that went into Watergate changed the course of history. I think it’s fair to say the guys influenced how events played out.
Of course the Weiner story does not rise to the level of Watergate and no one suggests it does. But you tell me how the principle of searching out the truth about an elected official’s actions is all that different here, especially when said official was clearly obfuscating. At the beginning of any story– Watergate or Weiner– no one knows where it’s going to end. With due respect, on what day do you believe the reporters should have ended their coverage of Weiner and “allow events to occur”??
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 10:12 pmJohn Kirch said “Reporters violated a key tenant of journalism” …
I believe you should have used the word “tenet” – not “tenant”.
Here’s some suggested reading for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Left-Turn-Liberal-Distorts-American/dp/0312555938/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308293504&sr=1-1
The book will be released July 19. Until then, you can make do with reading a review of it:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias
I’m sure in the interest of tolerance and open-mindedness, hallmarks of your fine institution, you’ll read the book in order to gain insight into the blatant liberal bias of “journalists” and news media. In fact, why not read Breitbart’s “Righteous Indignation” while you’re at it.
By the way, I don’t see Ag80’s (#51) comment at your article. Censoring speech? How disappointing.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:02 amAnonymous sources should be used only when the source has legitimate reason to fear harm from his identity being known, AND if there is no other source for the information.
No source who provides false or misleading information should be protected, because the source violated the conditions by dissembling.
It may have been acceptable to keep the mother’s name secret to avoid identifying her minor child, but once she lied, if she did, all bets should be off.
Estragon (ec6a4b) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:36 amI don’t think “Ethel” is a sock puppet. I would love to discuss this with her, especially the contradictions between what we heard from her family in the NY Post and what we read in the NY Times. I do not want to press a false narrative, of course — but the contradictions there call for some kind of explanation.
Patterico (135ea8) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:46 amEthel, almost everything Anthony Weiner stands for is wrong. Forget trivial details like who tweeted what to who.
Save yourself! Save your mind from a lifetime of believing and blindly following mindless rubbish, supporting “solutions” that don’t work or that are sometimes downright evil.
Random (8ec277) — 6/17/2011 @ 3:15 amIt isn’t as though the MSM has been using “confidential” sources for years to malign republicans and conservatives.
Anyone remember the NYT hit piece on Newt which suggested that he had had an affair with a very pretty lobbyist?
I think we should be able to sue confidential sources who lie, and the journalists who not only protect them but repeat the lies.
Jack (f9fe53) — 6/17/2011 @ 4:48 amThe reality is, reporters almost always get the majority of the facts wrong in any story.
I have been personally involved in a number of cases reported locally, and each time, the reporters mangled the facts (and I’m not talking about the facts that one could argue either way, but the unconstested facts that should have been easy to understand and report).
We tend to put reporters on pedestel and imagine that they are extremely intelligent, well educated people. They aren’t. I’m sure there are some very intelligent reporters, but that is the minority.
Most reporters are “c” average students at best who want to be famous. They rarely understand the substance of the story they are reporting, which means they can’t spot when something is clearly wrong when considered in context. Reporters can spout back information that they have heard, but that doesn’t mean it is correct.
And, the idea of “journalist ethics” is kind of silly as well. A reporter doesn’t lose his license to report for violating ethics. A reporter won’t necessarily lose his job for violating ethics. A reporter won’t be liable for damages for violating ethics. The ethics all come down to a) do I want to report this person’s identity and b) will it harm me to do so.
Personally, I don’t think anyone who speaks to the press should be granted anonymity. Why should anyone be allowed to say things about someone else that is going to be publicized and get to remain anonymous? How is that ethical or just? You are going to accuse someone of a major crime and it is going to be reported, but you get to remain anonymous? I find that unethical.
monkeytoe (5234ab) — 6/17/2011 @ 5:27 amBoy, what a nasty bunch you guys are. What happened to civil discussion? Is it possible to disagree with someone without insults? I’m not even sure where to begin. Weiner did a disgusting thing. Sending the photos was stupid and lying about it was reprehensible. How many more ways can I say it? But in my view, as a former reporter, the media goes over the top with this stuff. It’s not that cable TV reported each instance a new photo arose that bothers me. I take issue with the nonstop discussion on cable and radio talk shows. I take issue with reporters ambushing a congressman to ask about his sex life. It creates an atmosphere in which the press, by its very actions, plays a crucial role in how an event plays out. That is not what journalism is about. Also, think about all the other things of great importance going on in the world and then ask yourself, why spend so much time talking about the sexting of one congressman from one district? How is this significant? Because he lied? Give me a break. This story was covered because it was sex and it was easy and inexpensive. Why should CNN actually spend vital resources doing in-depth coverage of any number of foreign stories when it can just collect a few talking heads around a table to talk about Weiner. It’s lazy journalism.
To comment #59, Watergate and Weinergate are not comparable, as I know you realize. But is it wrong to suggest that the press brought down Nixon. This is a myth that has been sufficiently undermined over the years. (See “Getting it Wrong,” by Joe Campbell.) Even Woodward disputes the notion that he was responsible for Nixon’s resignation. The truth is that reporters do not want to influence events. That is not how they see their role. My bet is that most of the journalists who covered the Weiner story would strongly object to any suggestion that they contributed to his resignation. Most likely, they would argue that they simply covered the facts and that the political leadership in Washington pressured him to go. In my view, that would be a gross misunderstanding of what occurred over the past three weeks.
Thanks for letting me participate.
John (4f11b7) — 6/17/2011 @ 6:51 amYou sure are a nasty one, John.
JD (95a871) — 6/17/2011 @ 7:01 amIt is just about sex!
JD (95a871) — 6/17/2011 @ 7:15 amIt is just one teenie weenie little congressman!
Media crafted the story!
Not illegal!
Over coverage!
Not illegal!
Howie Kurtz could not be reached for comment. Don’t rush to judgment wiout all the facts. This was surely a fake.
JD (95a871) — 6/17/2011 @ 7:28 amComment spam rules!!!!!!!
JD (95a871) — 6/17/2011 @ 7:57 amSince nothing written about Ethel is “false” -reporting her contemporaneous tweets, and what has been reported and comparing it to later versions) is not writing falsities, but examining what information is available – all that is wanted is context and access to corroborating information to get the “truth” out as Ethel lived and experienced it or perceives it herself.
And the person who wrote as Ethel actually doesn’t sound very much like young Ethel at all. Perhaps it is someone close to her.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/17/2011 @ 7:59 amThat was McCain, not Newt, btw, actually the MSM has dropped the ball, repeatedly on this matter,
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/17/2011 @ 8:07 amHoward Kurtz, in particular, willing to accept the most ridiculous premises, possible, and most of the Sorosphere, willing to inpugn Breitbart, with fraud
and worse, but it’s par for the course,
John, don’t you need to get back to reading those 24,000 emails from Gov Sarah Palin?
It is really too sad. This is an incredible time in journalism – it’s a revolution in the way real news is investigated & reported. Yet the JournoListas, and the staid “journalism” professors, and the rest of the Democrat-Media Complex (the NYT, the WashComPost, the alphabet networks) are all stuck in the 60’s. Or the 70’s, in John Kirch’s case.
Just for fun, let’s go back & read John Kirch’s article re Weinergate http://mediapoliticsinperspective.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/weinergate-an-embarrassment-for-the-media/#comments . Kirch says in the article “The so-called sexting was done as part of his private life on his own time”. All righty, then. Well, let’s note the following:
1. Kirch never mentions the fact that Weiner exchanged DM’s with an underage girl, and that the girl had met Weiner at a high school class trip.
2. Kirch never mentions that Weiner’s Twitter account was called “twitter.com/#!/RepWeiner” – obviously clearly identifying him as a member of Congress.
3. Kirch never mentions the photos of Weiner in the House gym; again, clearly using a Congressional facility while taking lewd photos of himself.
4. Kirch says “the latest polls show a majority of New Yorkers in the state’s 9th congressional district actually wanted Weiner to stay”. Kirch’s article was dated June 16. That quote links to a NY1 story, dated June 9. And that story cites a Marist poll, which was actually taken Wednesday, June 8. That was the day the X-rated photo was released by Gawker (through the radio guys Anthony & Opie) – so those sampled in the poll may very well have not known about its existence yet. And that was before the House gym photos of Weiner in his various states of undress were published by TMZ. Moreover, the poll survyed only 512 registered voters, and had a margin of error of +/- 4.5 to 5 points – which is a 9 to 10 pt spread! http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/140653/ny1-exclusive–voters-say-weiner-was-unethical-but-want-him-to-serve-out-his-term
Keep in mind that Kirch’s whole argument is that Anthony Weiner’s private sex life should have been kept private. Sure – but one of the many important points is that Weiner blatantly and recklessly did NOT keep his sex life private. Somehow that point goes right over Kirch’s head.
Unfortunately for John Kirch, his Weinergate article is the epitome of sloppy journalism. It shows no attention to detail – and exhibits what must be a deliberate withholding of relevant facts to the story. I feel sorry for his students – for apparently Kirch teaches classes in Leftist indoctrination, instead of how to report news fairly and objectively.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/17/2011 @ 8:09 amJohn,
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/17/2011 @ 8:14 amI believed your comment during my childhood, but not any longer. At least that was how classic journalistic standards were once promoted to the public. Perhaps your ideals were practiced at one time. However, it does not take great powers of observation to comprehend the actions of many reporters. Although journalists may not recognize their political motivations, that does not mean such reasons do not exist., A good friend of many years is a reporter for the Deutsche Welle, and became a classic example of this problem. Over the years this journalist has evolved from a conservative libertarian into the far left political spectrum. His perspective while reporting has evolved right along with his changing political beliefs. You notice such changes when you are extremely familiar with someone’s writing over a long period of time. Yes, one example cannot be applied to brand an entire profession, but my friend’s example hardly stands alone. Too many journalists select what information to report based on their personal political goals. Straight up reporting on events has joined the dinosaurs and print media.
Let’s go back to the original story, if we had known that ‘Deep Throat’ was an upper echelon FBI executive, Mark Felt, upset over being ignored in the succession plan, who had been too zealous in her pursuit of radical terrorists, would the impact of the story, have been the same, specially considering that the subsequent revelations of same, almost put him in jail.
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/17/2011 @ 8:18 amYu guys sure are nasty.
JD (95a871) — 6/17/2011 @ 8:47 amThe weiner went flaccid.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:04 amStraight up reporting on events has joined the dinosaurs and print media.
Comment by bmertz — 6/17/2011 @ 8:14 am
The reality is that never existed. It is a myth that there was ever a time of completely unbiased, objective reporting.
Instead, in the past, papers identified which political party they were baised toward. Many newspapers still carry this today, although people don’t realize that is why they have such names – The “Springield Republican”, the Rochester’s “Democrat and Chronicle.” If you want through the country, you will see hundreds of papers bearing the names of political parties or points of view.
They myth of the unbaised, objective journalist was created around the same time that socialist/marxist thought was taking over institutions and acadamia (i.e., 50’s and 60’s). Probably not a coincidence.
Everything anyone does is ruled by bias to a degree. Some are conscious decisions and others are subconsious decisions. Why you find person “a” more credible than person “b” may be based on many factors, but that you agree with person “a’s” political philosophy and point of view will usually be a strong factor. Who you talk to, what you decide to ask, what you decide to report, what stories you decide to cover – these all have many factors, but certainly your political bias is one of those factors, even if – as some very few good journalists do – you try to keep your political bias out of it.
For instance, while not even realizing it, a reporter may take a much more aggressive stance toward questioning someone from the “wrong” political party while taking it relatively easy on someone from the “right” political party.
And, whether or not a story is considered “over covered” always seems to depend on which party the story hurts. I don’t recall any journalists claiming that the Mark Foley or Chris Lee stories were overcovered. What about that hit piece in the NY times that implied – with no evidence – that McCain was having an affair. We couldn’t even get most of the major media to cover the Weiner story for over a week, while the NYTimes basically made up a piece about McCain’s sex life.
So taht right there demonstrates bias.
monkeytoe (5234ab) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:05 am“(Journalism) has fallen asleep in the afternoon sunshine.”
Clarisse asked Montag if it was true that in the past firemen actually put out fires rather than burn books.
Montag assured her that was an absurd notion and could not possibly be true.
ropelight (6d708a) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:07 amAnd, going back to an earlier comment I made – the only time confidentiality seems justified is when the person legitimately (the person actually believes it) and reasonably (the person’s belief is not cuckoo) believes that their comments would put them in danger of physical harm. Losing one’s job is not enough. the fact that some people will be angry with you is not enough.
Again, why should one person be allowed to anonymously harm another person in a published piece? Why should anyone be able to say anything bad about anyone else in anonymity? How does that advance knowledge? The reader can’t decide the person’s credibility and does not know the person’s background, relationship to, or anything else. We are basically depending on a reporter to vouch for the anonymous person’s credibility and personal knowledge. That seems unfair to both the reader and the person being accused of whatever.
It strikes me that the whole anonymous source idea gives journalists way too much power and also too much license to potential fraud. Need something to bulk up a story angle? “anonymous” source. My gut tells me that a larger percentage of anonymous sources are fake than anyone would believe.
monkeytoe (5234ab) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:14 am“Yu guys sure are nasty.”
JD – Get a life, loozer!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:16 amAnd, as to the age of the girl, I don’t really think a 17 year old girl needs the kind of protection that people here assume.
She a) appears to be sexually active and open about it and b) is less than 1 year away from the age of majority. Not sure what we are protecting her from here.
Moreover, we only made the ages of about 15-18 “protected children” in the last 50 – 70 years. Before that, people around 15 were already working and getting married and were more or less considered adults.
I’m not saying we should go back to treating 15 year olds as adults. But we have lengthened childhood to where I hear people talking about people in their early 20’s as “just kids”. It is now starting to be accepted for 22, 23 year-olds to act immature and irresponsible.
a 17 year old may not be an adult, but is not a “child” in need of total protection either.
monkeytoe (5234ab) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:27 amJournoListers like John suck. Daley too.
JD the Psychologist (d56362) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:28 amTake it, or leave it.
Reporters can easily stipulate that a confidentiality agreement depends on truthful information. If the source provides false or misleading information the agreement is void.
Then, it’s entirely up the reporter to reveal the identity of the source or not.
ropelight (6d708a) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:40 amMonkeytoe, yes she is in need of protection. She’s a girl, not an adult, green as grass, with an adolescent brain and an adolescent outlook.
It’s not ok to take advantage of that, certainly not someone who on the wrong side of 45.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:48 amRe Lee’s original question, about the ethics of whether or not to keep a source confidential, I think it’s important to look at the identity of the parties involved, in addition to the terms of the original agreement between reporter and informant.
When we hear the term “confidential source”, it’s as if we automatically think of the relationship between priest and penitent (who confesses his/her sins), or the attorney/client privilege. A priest is of course someone who should be of the highest moral calibre (yes, I know many aren’t), and who has to study for years before getting ordained in the Roman Catholic church, and who must be screened and approved by his future peers and superiors – other priests, etc. And of course an attorney must study law, pass the bar, and be free of felony convictions etc. before receiving his/her law license. IOW, there is a specific certification process for priests, and for attorneys, who both deal with confidentiality issues.
Shep Smith, the liberal idiot at Fox News, never graduated from college. Glenn Beck only had one semester of college. Anderson Cooper graduated from college – but without a journalism degree. Now, I wouldn’t characterize any of those individuals as “journalists”, yet that is how they’re characterized by the media. They are really advocates of certain political viewpoints. And frankly I don’t see anything wrong with that, as long as they don’t pretend to have no political agendas (which in the case of Cooper & Smith, isn’t true).
So my point is that “journalism” is not some noble profession with specific rules of how to engage sources & with codified rules of ethics. To me it’s all a matter of truth – and reporting the truth is what’s most important. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
If the reporters’ source, Ethel’s mom, broke her word, IOW violated the terms of the agreement they had, I don’t see a problem with then reporting what had previously been agreed to be kept confidential. To treat Ethel’s mom as an innocent victim of Weiner’s preying on her daughter is presuming too much. What would a reasonable person do in this situation – they’d be outraged that a sitting Congressman sent highly inappropriate text msg’s to their teenage daughter. Yet Ethel’s parents haven’t given any indication of outrage. Why not? And why not point out the discrepancies in the reported stories & the facts of the Twitter correspondence (or whatever the points of contention are).
There’s something else at play too – the fact that Weiner consciously engaged in Twitter-play with an underage girl, when surely he knew he shouldn’t have – is an indicator of future behavior. Anyone watching his press conference yesterday (which was totally unnecessary) could see that he was laying the groundwork for a return to “public service”. There was a distinct lack of the contrition he had showed at his tearful confession days earlier. And so much for his enrollment at a “treatment” facility. It’s just a matter of time until this predator re-offends – and it shouldn’t surprise anyone if he picks another high school girl. What do predators do – sexual or otherwise – pick vulnerable victims. If Weiner doesn’t deal with his aggression, and anger, and hostility towards women, and narcissism, and huge ego – he’s a ticking time bomb.
All that to say – don’t let up on Weiner. This is not over. There’s some speculation right now that he will run in the special election – yes, that’s right. Never underestimate the cesspool that is New York Dem politics.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:57 amJD the Psychologist – We humble Psychologists need to stick together, no?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:03 amHimiliation leads to humility.
JD the licensed therapist (29e1cd) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:17 amThe unsolved problem that faces everyone is how to confront Ethel’s lying parents without harming Ethel. We know it is a possibility that if Ethel’s entire story never hits daylight and provides proof that he hit on a minor; Weiner will resurrect himself in a special election. But, if we cross that ethical line, we become what we hate. It is a Machiavellian question.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:20 amI predict that JournoListers will remain mendoucheous.
JD the Oracle (306f5d) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:21 amTo Miranda (#72) — My argument seems to be a bit too nuanced for you. I’m not justifying Weiner’s actions. I’m arguing that the media was over-the-top with it.
1. You statement that “Kirch never mentioned that Weiner exchanged DM’s with an underage girl, and that the girl had met Weiner at a high school class trip” is totally misleading and implies that Weiner somehow knew this girl personally. There is no evidence of that. Of course, I am as upset that he would send messages to what turned out to be a 17-year-old girl. I am repulsed by the entire episode. But this does not undermine the main point of my argument.
2. You said, “Kirch never mentions that Weiner’s Twitter account was called “twitter.com/#!/RepWeiner” – obviously clearly identifying him as a member of Congress.” So what? What does this prove? I made no argument that Weiner was trying to hide his identity, only that the press went over the top.
3. You wrote,, “Kirch never mentions the photos of Weiner in the House gym; again, clearly using a Congressional facility while taking lewd photos of himself.” I hardly see this as a major abuse of power. Give me a break. This is your BIG evidence that to justify this overvealous nature of this story.
4. You wrote, “Kirch says ‘the latest polls show a majority of New Yorkers in the state’s 9th congressional district actually wanted Weiner to stay.’ Kirch’s article was dated June 16. That quote links to a NY1 story, dated June 9. And that story cites a Marist poll, which was actually taken Wednesday, June 8…”
This was, in fact, the latest poll. I have seen no other polls specifically surveying voters of the 9th congressional district. In addition, the Marist poll is reputable and trustworthy. If you knew anything about social science methods, you would also know that 500-plus respondents, if done properly, is a fine sample.
5. You wrote, “Keep in mind that Kirch’s whole argument is that Anthony Weiner’s private sex life should have been kept private. Sure – but one of the many important points is that Weiner blatantly and recklessly did NOT keep his sex life private. Somehow that point goes right over Kirch’s head.
Again, my argument appears to be too nuanced for you. You also seem to have forgotten the facts. As stupid as Weiner was, he never intended his private life to be made public. He thought he was sending those photos privately. I agree. He was an idiot for doing this. But let’s not pretend that somehow Weiner wanted everyone to know about his online sexting problem.
6. You write, “Unfortunately for John Kirch, his Weinergate article is the epitome of sloppy journalism. It shows no attention to detail – and exhibits what must be a deliberate withholding of relevant facts to the story. I feel sorry for his students – for apparently Kirch teaches classes in Leftist indoctrination, instead of how to report news fairly and objectively.”
You do not know me and yet you feel qualified to criticize how I may teach my students. I would say that it is you who is sloppy and has no regard for details. Disagree with me. That’s fine. But hold the personal insults.
John (4f11b7) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:32 amHaughty self-absorbed puffery is so cute, John. This JounoLister is too nuanced for us rubes.
William Yelverton (85b089) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:38 amIf I tried to parody an arrogant poofter MFM person thingie, I could not do any better than John Kirch. What a self-important nasty man. Bro Bradley and Ag80 nailed this clown from the get-go.
John – when you flex and pose in the mirror, do you tell yourself how awesome you are?
JD (85b089) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:43 amJohn – It appears counterarguments to your claim that the media’s coverage of Weiner was over the top are too nuanced for you. Please provide some evidence of that over the top coverage so that we may actually evaluate your claim.
Mushroom-bruised Padparadscha (bf33e9) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:44 amWell, by that standard, Mark Foley, didn’t intend, or Ensign, or Vitter, but their behavior came to light. Gary Hart’s a more arguable case, he did
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:44 ambait them by telling him ‘to follow him’
um, do we have accidental sockpuppetry in this thread?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:52 amI’am not allowed to post.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:57 amOh wait never mind.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/17/2011 @ 10:58 amAaron – It appears that some noms de sock were not changed back before posting as well as some minor suffixes added to names here and there.
Is this a great country, or what?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2011 @ 11:14 amAnd that poll was taken on Shovuos when observant Jews, who constitute a large sector of that district, were not answering their phones (or watching TV, listening to the radio, or using their computers).
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/17/2011 @ 11:41 amRead my #90, then the JournoLister’s #91. It is like I can predict the future.
JD the Oracle (306f5d) — 6/17/2011 @ 11:44 amYou know, I remember someone else who loved to use the word nuance to explain away his rhetorical and policy contradictions and to look down his nose on those he considered to be his intellectual inferiors? Yes, it was another John. John F. Kerry.
elissa (0d822c) — 6/17/2011 @ 11:44 amI am laughing too hard to comment on the nutty professor’s hasty responses.
TOO NUANCED!!!! Oh, silly little liberal!
And Kirch even says “Hold the personal insults” – when he previously said (#66) “Boy what a nasty bunch you guys are”.
No use. Logic and rational thought have no place in the liberal’s mind. It is just too funny that he’s a caricature of the typical Liberal – no ability to argue on facts – just mindless repetition of talking points. It’s the media’s fault! They were over the top! The press harassed him! Boo hoo!
Miranda (4104db) — 6/17/2011 @ 11:46 amThe whole concept of “journalistic ethics” is a joke. Journalism is a trade, not a profession. And its history is far from ethical. Just consider how newspapers used to get photos, before the days of handheld cameras. Every newspaper openly engaged in crime, condoned and endorsed and paid criminals, and everyone knew it but nobody said anything. It was “ethical” because that was how to get the story. Or explain how a journalist today, who receives stolen documents from a “whistleblower”, is different from any fence who receives stolen goods. When the journalist conspires with the thief, and protects his identity, he is an accessory in the crime, neither more nor less, but somehow we are to overlook this because journalism is some sort of sacred calling. Bull.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/17/2011 @ 11:53 am==Comment by JD the Oracle — 6/17/2011 @ 11:44 am==
Not to get into a pi**ing contest with you over prescient oracle-y pronouncements, but may I refer you back to the very first comment posted on this thread?
elissa with the crystal ball (0d822c) — 6/17/2011 @ 11:55 amAnother thing about anonymous sources: the reader has no obligation at all to assume that the source exists. Since there is nothing to stop a journalist from making up an anonymous source, it must surely happen regularly, so why should we believe it didn’t happen in any particular instance, unless we know and trust the reporter?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:00 pmSee, for instance, the decline and fall of Capitol Hill Blues, whose editor was caught repeatedly making up information which he attributed to nonexistent sources.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:01 pmNo kidding. They are not some sacred order of servants to mankind. You can go back earlier to journalistic shenanighans during the English Civil War and the French Revolution. Ethics be hanged, they wanted to topple a government.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:05 pmA great history about journalists’ behavior can be found in Jeremy Popkins, Revolutionary News: The Press in France, 1789
Milhouse is quite right about the criminal aspects of journalism. I strongly suggest that anyone who has not seen it hunt up a copy of the original film of The Front Page, written by former Chicago City News Bureau journalist Ben Hecht. That film (starring Pat O’Brien, Adolphe Menjou, and a host of brilliant supporting actors) gives a pretty good and only slightly fictionalized view of what journalism was like before it started dressing itself up with degrees.
There is reference in the film to picture-stealing, which was how newspapers used to get pictures in the old days. There is a slightly oblique reference to the thugs that newspapers used to employ as “circulation sluggers”; the papers would send thugs around to news stands to beat up the newsies if they didn’t feature the slugger’s papers more prominently. Butch McGurk and Diamond Louie in the film are circulation sluggers.
buzzsawmonkey (30424d) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:09 pmAnd this just goes to show you what “professional journalists” consider the standard of “reputable and trustworthy”. What “scientific method” accounts for a poll that contains not a single member of a distinct community that makes up a significant percentage of the district, because it was conducted on a day when no members of that community were reachable? Did the Marist pollers not know about the district’s demographic composition? They’re in New York — did they not think to look up an online Jewish calendar? Do they not bother taking demographic information from their interviewees, to check the representativeness of the sample?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:25 pmA tip o’ the cap to elissa. It was kind of John Kirch to prove how brilliant we are, no?
JD the Oracle (85b089) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:27 pmWhy thank you; I sure hope I’m right, because I learned about this from you, and am mostly just repeating what you told me 🙂
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/17/2011 @ 12:30 pmDoes this still hold true in say, 3 months when she turns 18 (I’m just guessing – but you get my point)?
this infantalization of teenagers is silly.
monkeytoe (5234ab) — 6/17/2011 @ 1:29 pmAnd, as to my point at 113 – I’m not saying that what Weiner did was right, and I’m not even saying that we should be putting her name in the paper. I’m saying that her “right” of protection is not so strong that the mother should not be outed b/c it will lead back to her.
this girl is old enough to know her activities were wrong. And she is posting stuff on twitter about involvement with older men and sex. I hardly think her virtue needs to be protected to any great degree.
If she were 15, I would feel a little differently. But at 17?
I have a lot of problems with the way we treat age. As an example, we routinely see cases where a 19 year old guy gets a criminal record and put on a sex offender registry for engaging in sex with a 17 year old girl. That, to me, is absurd.
monkeytoe (5234ab) — 6/17/2011 @ 1:37 pmWe aren’t talking about a girl interacting with her peers, or a 17/19 relationship at all, though. She was an object of prey for a 47 year old man. He’s got 30 years on her. Outing her mother should consist of trying to get her side of the story, and to get it right, which earlier reporters might have gotten wrong or distorted – perhaps even on purpose. Naming her isn’t necessary for that.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/17/2011 @ 1:49 pmA – I said I wasn’t talking about naming her.
b – what difference does it make what weiner’s age is to my point that she is publicly, on twitter, talking about relationships with older men and being sexually active? How does his age affect her conduct? This knee jerk reaction of “oh my god, she’s 17, just a baby, must protect” is silly.
c- my point about the 19/17 difference was to illustrate how absurd we treat age.
I just get sick fo teh infantilazation of 17 year old, or even 16 year olds. It wasn’t until the last 50 years or so that people of that age were not considered adults. So all of human history, people of that age were considered adults, but all of a sudden, they are so tender as to be infants?
I’m not saying we should go back to 15 year olds workign the minds and getting married. I’m just saying that we have gone a little too far in the other direction.
I don’t think this particular 17 year old deserves more than token protection. If the mother lied, the mother should be outed with no concern for whether that will lead people to know who teh 17 year old is.
monkeytoe (5234ab) — 6/17/2011 @ 2:00 pm@monkeytoes,
In part it is about cognitive development, and in part about life experience,
The maturity level for teenagers before they either go to college or enter the world of full-time employment is very low due to those factors. They make stupid mistakes at that age. Many adults look back at that period of their lives and wince. So we try to cut our goslings a break. “Ethel” is not an experienced adult who understands the cost package to her bad choices. Weiner, however, has the experience to understand the potential for harm to a minor. No responsible adult places a teenager in such a situation. I also question whether Ethel’s mother has taken enough steps to protect her daughter. I would be tearing up the floorboards if I thought my child had been approached in an inappropriate manner. But, we don’t know the answers.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/17/2011 @ 2:09 pmJohn Kirch says the media went overboard on the Weiner story.
He’s entitled to his opinion, but it’s unsupported by the facts. Weiner drove the story with his arrogant attitude and his obvious lies, the media responded by reporting Weiner’s inconsistencies and pressing him to come clean.
It was Weiner’s reckless behavior that was over-the-top, and his story was bogus from day one, as subsequent events prove. Even a J school trained journalist could see that, if he was willing to see beyond the end of his nose.
John Kirch has his head in the sand and has cause confused with effect.
Barbara Strisand (6d708a) — 6/17/2011 @ 2:48 pmIt is the truthiness of the story which drove the left and the MSM(BIRM) crazy and no coverage would have been too much coverage. The laughable protestations about “nuance” are just too too condescending to bear.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2011 @ 3:46 pmMonkeytoe, You were talking about naming Ethel’s mother and I was referring to the latter.
The spread in ages has a great deal to do with predation and taking advantage of the follies and vanities of youth.
Weiner is, as I said, thirty years her senior. She’s not even a senior in high school. Adults his age are charged with helping guide the young, not use them or make them objects of prey. She was drawn into this by a vile man whose access an appeal to her were all tied to his public-given prestige of office, and his duty was even higher than the ordinary person’s to serve as guide, not predator, of persons who are not adults.
If you can’t understand why outrage and scorn should SOLEY be pointed at him, there is something wrong with your idea of what seventeen year old girls should be for middle aged men.
If her mother lied, and there is no way for you to be certain of that (as opposed to remarks incorrectly reported or distorted by media, lack of full knowledge herself). Is she a source who “burned” a reporter?
Even if Ethel herself flat lied to protect herself and/or the congressman, there is no call to out her. She is victim, she is the object of prey.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/17/2011 @ 3:48 pmWell monkeytoe,
Quote:
Does it matter that she is still closer to 16 than 18 (without going into specifics and sharing her birthday here!)
Joe
Joe Smith (54c0c1) — 6/17/2011 @ 5:41 pm