Hard News: In the nicest possible way
248 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
I really don't get what's particularly egregious about the story compared with many others. Unless you can prove that Eddie's claims of a National party source are wrong, Craig, then we're in the same position with your "claims" here aren't we? And with mine and anyone else's.
Sacha: So everyone does it, move on and there's nothing to see here? One reason why I very strongly object to stories entirely sourced to Mr. A. Nonymous is that I don't think it's my bloody job to "prove" that a hack or blogger isn't talking out their sphincter, especially when the claims being made are far from trivial. Attribution isn't perfect -- after all, flat out fabricating sourced quotes isn't unknown -- but it's a good start for readers to assess the credibility of stories.
You might want to meditate on the reason why the New York Times tightened up on the use of anonymous sources following the Jayson Blair scandal or, closer to home, why Fairfax won't be rehiring John Manukia any time soon. For all the MSM's flaws, I'd like to hope there's still a meaningful distinction between gossip and news, let alone fact and fiction. And any blog that wants to be taken serious need to do the same, and not get enabled just because its politically congenial.
Meanwhile, Danyl over at the Dim-Post smells something nasty.
-
And to be entirely honest, have I sometimes been more credulous that I should have been about stuff in Kiwiblog? Sure.
-
I meant about this specific story, Craig. Interesting DimPost argument on that front, thanks, though our friend "refute" = deny rears its ugly head again.
-
Unless you can prove that Eddie's claims of a National party source are wrong, Craig, then we're in the same position with your "claims" here aren't we?
Who here makes claims of insider knowledge? There is a difference between fact and opinion, and if an opinion is presented as fact than surely it's not up to us to prove that it's wrong, but rather we should strive apply the same skepticism across the board. In the case of anonymous partisan blogger referring to multiple anonymous sources, I think that bar has to be set very high - higher than for a traditional journalist who at least has a name and is held to professional codes of practice.
-
I believe Fran's "Mood of the Boardroom" would qualify all too well. Seductive lighting, candles and all.
I think Fran's winks and nods from anonymous sources are often her most useful work. Which isn't to say that they don't sometimes have to be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Giovanni, while it is not fact without proof, I do not see how "I got this from Nat insiders" qualfies as opinion. Though it does sound hollowly familiar - maybe that's what's really pushing buttons in some quarters. Disloyal hearsay, perhaps?
-
In the case of anonymous partisan blogger referring to multiple anonymous sources, I think that bar has to be set very high - higher than for a traditional journalist who at least has a name and is held to professional codes of practice.
To which the appropriate response is surely: Salt, grain of.
Or, in the case of a tip from Whaleoil's "Labour insiders": Salt, truckload of.
-
I meant about this specific story, Craig. Interesting DimPost argument on that front, thanks, though our friend "refute" = deny rears its ugly head again.<./quote>
I've lost that one, and am now saving my belled pedant hat for misuse of decimate (which does not mean "lot of shit got burned down" people). :)
<quote>Who here makes claims of insider knowledge?
Hey, I occasionally have coffee (and a good gossip) with Jordan Carter -- but the bastard is discreet to a fault, and we don't blog our meetings, so he's not much use as an anonymous Labour insider. Bugger. :) On one level, New Zealand is a very small town and I sure don't have so many friends that I can afford to strain them through a political-ideological filter. But seriously, I find it about as credible that anyone close to Key is gabbing to The Standard as the possibility that Conor Roberts or Judith Tizzard's former electorate agent is going to be startlingly indiscreet the next time we cross paths at a PA function.
What I do find entirely plausible is that 'Eddie' is hearing the same political gossip as everyone else, but that's not credible news. And as Gio so eloquently says, the distinction is worth maintaining across the political board, and regardless of whether you work in wood pulp or pixels.
-
Giovanni, while it is not fact without proof, I do not see how "I got this from Nat insiders" qualfies as opinion.
I think fact and opinion are indistinguishable when what is stated as fact has got no corroboration whatsoever. We've been there in the Trig Palin affair, where a theory plucked out of somebody's arse got a lot of mileage on this very community on the grounds that well, after all it could have been true. I cannot overstate how much of a slippery slope I think that is.
To make a comparison, think of Hager and the National party emails. Hager is a partisan voice, and he had an anonymous source, but the story was still very credible, due to a combination of the fact that he published it with his own name and the National Party never said those emails were forged. I understand not all stories can break that way, but really, 'Eddie' and his numerous sources 'in and around' the National Party? Bullshit until proven otherwise.
-
(BTW, I have no problem with anonymous political blogging per se - I think we can all agree that what Idiot/Savant does is very valuable. It's anonymous political blogging claiming to have secured an (undemonstrable) scoop from anonymous sources that I cannot stomach.)
-
I think fact and opinion are indistinguishable when what is stated as fact has got no corroboration whatsoever. We've been there in the Trig Palin affair, where a theory plucked out of somebody's arse got a lot of mileage on this very community on the grounds that well, after all it could have been true. I cannot overstate how much of a slippery slope I think that is.
Are you really comparing a claim of an insider tip on a Prime Ministerial decision with the speculation about Palin's baby?
There was no insider tip on the Palin thing, just a string of apparently unusual circumstances upon which people speculated (and Andrew Sullivan still does).
The more correct comparison would be with the kind of tips on who's-going-to-do-what that come and go in the US political media on a roughly hourly basis. It's hardly unusual.
Apart from the fact that both clearly offend you, the two seem barely comparable at all.
FWIW, my guess would be that "Eddie" clearly spoke to someone; his/her track record certainly doesn't seem to be one of sheer fabrication (which you seem to be implying). The question would be whether someone actually had it right, or was merely passing on political gossip.
-
Are you really comparing a claim of an insider tip on a Prime Ministerial decision with the speculation about Palin's baby?
Yes, insofar and I don't think it's the plausibility of either that is an issue. I'm trying to make the point that anonymous blogger + vague anonymous sources = claim that regardless of whether or not it could be true or whether or not we'd like it to be true, it hasn't graduated to the kind of statement whose truth value it even makes sense to discuss. And regardless of the enormity of the Palin story compared to the insignificance of the Eddie scoop, I think the underlying issue is the same and it's really important.
The more correct comparison would be with the kind of tips on who's-going-to-do-what that come and go in the US political media on a roughly hourly basis. It's hardly unusual.
I find it problematic, regardless of how usual or unusual it is. I think the fact that a thinking person like Sullivan can still chase the Palin story is of genuine concern. It's as if somehow the healthy distrust of journalists has morphed into an unhealthy trust of partisan hacks and basically anybody who's not a journalist.
-
</quote>BTW, I have no problem with anonymous political blogging per se - I think we can all agree that what Idiot/Savant does is very valuable.</quote>
Sure, just as I don't think The Economist is any less credible or interesting because it sees no need to dispense with the historical tradition that none of its contributors get by-lines.
OTOH, I think we can all agree that there's a reason why the more rancid sewer-sperlunkers are reluctant to put their name to their ejaculations. When they're assailing the integrity of people (like politicians and MSM folks) who don't have the same luxury, well that makes me rather uncomfortable.
-
The more correct comparison would be with the kind of tips on who's-going-to-do-what that come and go in the US political media on a roughly hourly basis. It's hardly unusual.
And how often is it also completely wrong? And I think there's certainly a difference between between speculating that X. is a front runner for a high profile Cabinet post, and that they're going to be fired "for adultery" (and it's now open season to start digging for smut on the rest of the Cabinet). Hell, that would be a slow (and relatively sane) day for the right-wing nutroots.
-
I find it problematic, regardless of how usual or unusual it is.
So by your lights, Judith Miller's bogus WMD stories for the New York Times were okay because they appeared under a byline in a reputable paper, but a blogger breaking a genuine story isn't?
I presume you're making an exception for all the countries where there isn't press freedom, and bloggers reporting anonymously are a key news source.
I'm still puzzled about what you want. Bloggers never to report a tip? To be roundly condemned when they do, as a matter of policy? Or just for all of us to assess claims on their merits and get on with it?
-
So by your lights, Judith Miller's bogus WMD stories for the New York Times were okay because they appeared under a byline in a reputable paper, but a blogger breaking a genuine story isn't?
FFS, Russell... Point me kindly to where I wrote or suggested that we should trust journalists implicitly? Conversely, I would like you to walk me through how the fact that Judith Miller made up stories about WMDs makes Eddie from The Standard credible.
What, it's not actually what you're saying? I didn't think so.
I presume you're making an exception for all the countries where there isn't press freedom, and bloggers reporting anonymously are a key news source.
Kind of what I meant by "in a country where freedom of the press isn't prosecuted".
I'm still puzzled about what you want. Bloggers never to report a tip? To be roundly condemned when they do, as a matter of policy? Or just for all of us to assess claims on their merits and get on with it?
What I'm saying is that anonymous partisan bloggers shouldn't report anonymous tips amounting to an accusation that cannot be disproven, or if they do we should not roundly condemn them but simply ignore them, in that what they're saying and who they are while they're saying it is simply too vague. Otherwise I think it becomes far too easy to influence the political conversation in a country that is hardly spoilt for quality in that area.
I shall also point again to I/S for an idea of how it can be and should be done by a non journalist. He's anonymous, he's polemical, he sticks to the facts. When he puts forward an opinion it's his opinion, when he comes up with a theory it's his theory, not a scoop based on a mysterious tip.
Do you have anonymous sources you want to use? Acquire a name and an address, or become a journalist. Otherwise it's too easy and frankly more than a little cowardly.
-
At least someone at The Standard watches Doctor Who.
"Don't you think she looks tired?"
Truly bizarre...
-
What I'm saying is that anonymous partisan bloggers shouldn't report anonymous tips amounting to an accusation that cannot be disproven, or if they do we should not roundly condemn them but simply ignore them, in that what they're saying and who they are while they're saying it is simply too vague. Otherwise I think it becomes far too easy to influence the political conversation in a country that is hardly spoilt for quality in that area.
The funny thing is that the named journalists pay very close attention to those blogs. I suspect they'd be sad if no bloggers ever ventured things they'd been told in confidence.
but simply ignore them
That's what I was busy doing when someone got me into this crazy argument about anonymous sources ;-)
-
The funny thing is that the named journalists pay very close attention to those blogs. I suspect they'd be sad if no bloggers ever ventured things they'd been told in confidence.
I see you're still assuming that Eddie is not just making things up. But even if journalists do pay attention to (some) bloggers of that particular ilk, I hope it will be to put that information in the context of what they already suspect or know. Lots of rumours surfacing about something from disconnected sources all at the same time could point them to an actual story.
In my professional capacity of person sitting on his arse, I don't have any of the first hand information that would enable me to tell whether or not a particular blogger is credible. So I just choose to follow the ones whose information is verifiable.
"Don't you think she looks tired?"
God, that was just sad.
-
I see you're still assuming that Eddie is not just making things up.
Isn't it more the case that you immediately made up your mind that s/he is?
As I said, my guess is that s/he was told something by someone -- people who work in Parliament do gossip over drinks, and on Eddie's record I'd say it was more likely than 100% fabrication -- but without knowing the merit of the original source, I'd file it away if I read it, without paying it any great mind.
I'm just not outraged by it. Not every tip is a good one. Fact of life.
Lots of rumours surfacing about something from disconnected sources all at the same time could point them to an actual story.
Well, exactly.
One example of a story widely tipped on blogs was that of John Key's boozy night out last year with gallery journalists, where he said a bunch of possibly unwise things and let the odd cat out of the bag.
It was completely unsourced and sounded frankly unlikely. But as Duncan Garner confirmed this year on Media7, it very much happened. The journalists just hadn't bothered to tell us about it (although Garner couldn't stop once he got going).
Sometimes, tips actually are what they seem, or have a grain of truth. Just sayin'.
Must go make television.
-
Isn't it more the case that you immediately made up your mind that s/he is?
Not quite (and believe me I wouldn't harp on about it if I didn't think it was important). Eddie's credibility is just unknowable, the way in which the post is framed - partisan anonymous blogger citing anonymous sources to make a claim that is in itself impossible to disprove - makes its contents unverifiable from any angle. Now if those contents were a recipe for cake, that wouldn't be so much of an issue, but since it's an accusation against a political adversary, I think it's incumbent upon us to assume that it is in fact not true.
Now go and make some good television, you big bear of a man.
-
Eddie's credibility is just unknowable, the way in which the post is framed - partisan anonymous blogger citing anonymous sources to make a claim that is in itself impossible to disprove - makes its contents unverifiable from any angle.
I understand this point Gio, but the context and known information are relevant to assessing the veracity of Eddie's claims. Eddie alleges Worth was sacked for something we actually know a bit about c.f. there were complaints, there were preliminary police investigations etc. Absent a denial from Worth or some clear statement by Key, Eddie's comments cohere with what's generally known.
Eddie might be unknown and his/her sources anonymous, but s/he's saying nothing terribly controversial. Someone may counter with "have you stopped beating your wife" but even that's a stretch since Worth's peccadilloes appear to well documented.
To me then it's a case of an admittedly partisan blogger claiming to have insider knowledge confirming what everyone basically suspects anyway ...
-
To me then it's a case of an admittedly partisan blogger claiming to have insider knowledge confirming what everyone basically suspects anyway ...
Does everybody suspect that Worth was sacked for being an adulterer? I didn't.
-
Does everybody suspect that Worth was sacked for being an adulterer? I didn't.
Well my sense of what "everyone" thinks is filtered by my access to information. I did think that that was generally understood, I could well be wrong. He should've been sacked for being a prat in my opinion (and before anyone says, you would say that, there's a couple of Nats I reckon are doing pretty well).
-
My feeling having access to no insider information whatsoever was that there were serious allegations of sexual harrassment against him, coming on top of previous allegations on which Key had taken him at his word, and it was going to turn into a scandal, and Key sacked him to insulate the government from said scandal: and that the secrecy around the reasons for the sacking had to do with the potentially embarrassing timeline of when Key became aware of the two sets of allegations. Did I misread this?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.