Comments on: We’re off the record here, right? http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/03/11/were-off-the-record-here-right/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:32:22 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/03/11/were-off-the-record-here-right/comment-page-1/#comment-6974 Julian Sanchez Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:03:01 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=2969#comment-6974 Huh? What popup? Huh? What popup?

]]> By: Scott http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/03/11/were-off-the-record-here-right/comment-page-1/#comment-6973 Scott Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:16:39 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=2969#comment-6973 Turn your damn popup off. Turn your damn popup off.

]]> By: Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/03/11/were-off-the-record-here-right/comment-page-1/#comment-6967 Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:25:26 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=2969#comment-6967 [...] criticisms I wrote last week of the widespread and baseless grants of anonymity by journalists, Julian Sanchez responds that, while he largely agrees with the objections I raise, it is a more complicated problem than [...] [...] criticisms I wrote last week of the widespread and baseless grants of anonymity by journalists, Julian Sanchez responds that, while he largely agrees with the objections I raise, it is a more complicated problem than [...]

]]> By: Kevin B. O'Reilly http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/03/11/were-off-the-record-here-right/comment-page-1/#comment-6966 Kevin B. O'Reilly Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:30:35 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=2969#comment-6966 You can't go back on the agreement, but you can ask why in retrospect what they've said needs to be off the record or on background, then state that purported reason when attributing the statement. And you can -- and depending on the circumstances, perhaps should -- challenge the source or try to negotiate with the source to work on some language that they are willing to have their name attached to. But as you point out, there is a collective action problem. And if the culture of the news organization rewards anonymous scoops, even if they turn out with regularity to be wrong, then reporters will go back to the well again and again regardless of what the written policies on attribution may be. Jack Shafer's covered this subject well many times. Search Slate for anonymice. You can’t go back on the agreement, but you can ask why in retrospect what they’ve said needs to be off the record or on background, then state that purported reason when attributing the statement. And you can — and depending on the circumstances, perhaps should — challenge the source or try to negotiate with the source to work on some language that they are willing to have their name attached to. But as you point out, there is a collective action problem. And if the culture of the news organization rewards anonymous scoops, even if they turn out with regularity to be wrong, then reporters will go back to the well again and again regardless of what the written policies on attribution may be.

Jack Shafer’s covered this subject well many times. Search Slate for anonymice.

]]> By: The Usefulness of Anonymous Sources | Newpapers Collected http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/03/11/were-off-the-record-here-right/comment-page-1/#comment-6964 The Usefulness of Anonymous Sources | Newpapers Collected Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:27:30 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=2969#comment-6964 [...] Greenwald is, as Julian Sanchez says, back on the warpath. This time he’s blasting the continued use of anyonymous sources and [...] [...] Greenwald is, as Julian Sanchez says, back on the warpath. This time he’s blasting the continued use of anyonymous sources and [...]

]]>