There is nothing difficult about attribution. It's simply saying who or what your source is, whether it's a fact, an opinion or a quote. As we've discussed in class, attribution is the soul of journalism because without it, your article or broadcast is not believable. Reporters need to protect themselves. In the event that the information proves to be false, at least the reporter can truthfully say that her source was wrong, not her. And attribution establishes credibility by showing readers or listeners where they can go if they challenge anything in the article or if they want to obtain more information from your sources.
Getting the story first is nice. Getting it fast is nice too. But getting itright supercedes everything else. Without journalistic integrity, reporters or publications have nothing to offer readers or listeners. Recently an Irish college student conducted a media experiment that, unfortunately, major news organizations failed. The results were alarming and should make everyone -- especially aspiring journalists -- remember to not only attribute their own facts, but to check and re-check any unattributed information they obtain online. Click here to read an article about the hoax. Your thoughts?
One thing's for sure. Deep Throat, their anonymous source for many of the stories, was instrumental in helping them uncover the Watergate scandal. For years Deep Throat's identity remained a mystery until Mark Felt, former associate director of the FBI, admitted in 2005 that he was, in fact, the parking garage informant. While some praise Felt for his courage, others consider him a traitor for leaking classified information to reporters. Click here to see this point of view.
Do you think Deep Throat was a hero? Or was he maybe someone who disliked President Nixon and used Woodward and Bernstein for his own agenda? How do you feel about the value and trustworthiness of anonymous sources?
First, I think that it is very important that journalists check their sources and ensure they are reliable. It surprises me that so many newspapers and media outlets would use the false quote from Wikipedia. You would think that since young students are taught not to believe everything on Wikipedia, adults would be smart enough to follow that rule as well. It's a very interesting experiment that that man conducted. Second, I think that it would be harder nowadays for reporters like Woodward and Bernstein to uncover such a large case about a president. I think that now that everything is controlled, in my own belief, by corporate America and so many news organizations are truly owned by a larger one, it would be easy for news to become corrupt. A news company could have an agreement with someone from the government and bam. Unreliable. Last, I think that it was a brave and remarkable thing that Mark Felt did. He secretly gave Woodward and Bernstein important information that was being hidden by the Republican Party. I do not think he had "his own agenda". I think he was being an honest man who is now considered a hero in my mind. I do think anonymous sources aren't always reliable, and it was a good thing that Woodward and Bernstein always tried to confirm what he said with at least one other source
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the citing and sources! It is very important to double-check information and make sure the information is accurate. I think Woodward and Bernstein did a fairly good job with making sure there information was correct. With an anonymous source, sometimes the facts can be unreliable. But they talked with different people, clarifying their information. I also agree with what you said about it being more difficult for Woodward and Bernstein to investigate the case today. Everything is so controlled nowadays and it would be very difficult to gain access to secret information!
DeleteI agree with both you and Molly! I am in great shock that newspaper organizations are willing to use sources with out checking them first. These companies that are instilled with this trust and dependence should ensure that what they publish is most definitely liable.
DeleteI think Woodward and Bernstein did a great job of getting the information and investigating the events. I think that today's technology would have benefited them because it would have been a faster process. But I also think that the determination and hard work Woodward and Bernstein displayed made the story much better. They did not have unlimited access to the Web; they had to use their knowledge, secret interviews, and persistency to get the facts. Woodward and Bernstein used personal sources (interviews and phone calls) to get there information and by doing that, they were intrigued and interested in finding out more. I feel that they were personally connected to the story. Also, unlimited access to the web could have brought up problems such as an overload of information. An overload of information can cause stress, anxiety, and can be difficult to manage.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Deep Throat (Mark Felt), I am troubled with what to think. In ways, I think he was a hero, but in other ways I do not. I think he was a hero for his desire to bring about change, but I think the way he did it was sneaky and unprofessional. When you are an FBI member or a government official, I do not think it is appropriate to share private information with the public by sneaking around in dark alleys and garages. I agree with what Pat Buchanan suggested. He believed that Felt should have stood up and resigned instead of sneaking around during a campaign, leaking the information. Mark Felt was a tremendous help to Woodward and Bernstein during their investigation of finding the truth.
What you said about the process of investigating for Woodward and Bernstein being faster today made me think for a second. At first I disagreed with you because I wrote something different in my comment, but now that I think about it I half agree with you because yes, they would not have to go to the library and go through all that paperwork and they wouldn't have to look through so many paper records. But, I do think that with all the new security and technology we have today that the government would be better at covering up something they don't want found, so I think that part of the investigation would be trickier.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt was very surprising to me to see how quickly the journalists used the quote without checking the attribution. We are taught so much in school and in life to always make sure our information is credible and to know where it comes from. And the experiment proved that not everyone does that. It would have been crazy if the student who did the experiment never came forward and people would have believed the made up quote.
ReplyDeleteI think Woodward and Bernstein did a great job investigating and being persistent, but today I think their jobs would have been much harder. With all the new technology today, the scandal could have been covered up much more, people might have been even less willing to talk, and the criminals could change their names and identities. Today, a scandal like Watergate would be much more complicated than it was in the 1970s.
After reading the article about the opposing views about Felt revealing secret information, I found myself agreeing with some of what Colson and Buchanan said, like the fact that Felt could have gone and talked to the president about the situation. But have they thought about the fact that Nixon may have done nothing? He could have wanted these things to be happening. And then what would Felt do? Just resign and go his own way and not have a care in the world? No. That would be selfish. When Colson says the honorable thing would have been to resign after that, I disagree, because resigning would be cowardly. And, if he resigned, he would lose out on gaining more useful information. Telling information to Woodward and Berstein was not cowardly. It was brave of him to do that; brave of him to risk himself for the good of the country and good of the people. Though betraying your government is bad, I think it is right to do so when the government is betraying its people. My opinion is that revealing information of a corrupt government is much better than being a part of the corrupt government. Felt was a hero, at least that's what I would like to think. If he did what he did for any other reason than for the good of the people that would be a shame.
Also, I don't trust anonymous sources unless it's by very professional people or organizations because sometimes I think, "If this person doesn't have a name how do I know they are even a real person?"
By the way, I thought Bob Woodward was very attractive in the movie.
In the case of precision and attribution, quality over quantity is absolutely mandatory. As said in the article, reliability is most definitely key to being a good journalist. Though being speedy on scoops can be a very beneficial aspect of journalism, getting the story fast and wrong does not make up for the injustice of writing the story wrong. Along with writing a story improperly, attribution is heavily relevant to any story. If a journalist uses an attribute in their story when something is unjustly written it is no longer in the hands of the journalist. It becomes the fault of the resource. Having a source is advantageous, however having an anonymous source is a risk and even has the potential to be detrimental to an article. Though having a unnamed source may still be credible, if there is a mishap in a story the journalist is rightly held liable. Shane Fitzgerald, a Dublin University student experimented these theories. He posted a hermitic, but a phony quote. Much time progressed while users continued to use the fake quote with out any question of doubt. Fitzgerald concluded with the importance of attribution and precision. Though an article, story, or even just a quote may seem to be accurate try can very easily have fault.
ReplyDeleteWith the modern technology of today taken into account, there is no doubt that Woodward and Bernstein would have had more than a broad selection of resources. However, this could also put the two at a disadvantage. As displayed in the Fitzgerald article, it is no task for an unreliable source to expose a phony article, leaving countless readers and journalist to believe a story that is wrong and unjustly written. Deep throat, an anonymous resource for numerous stories on the Watergate Scandal, was a hero. Though he was a member of the FBI and many believe he is a traitor, betraying his own, he has only done what is right. Member or no member, dislike or like, he revealed the truth. Anonymous sources can be very risky however in the case of the Watergate Scandal, Woodward and Bernstein's very own Deep Throat was most definitely key to this national discrepancy.
ReplyDeleteJournalists need to figure out whether their sources are correct before reporting them. The story won't be any good if it is not true especially if the reporter took it from an unreliable source. News should be fast and timely, of course, but what good is the news if it is all untrue. This is harmful to the newspaper because it will diminish the newspaper's reputation as a reliable source for current events. Even if the facts came from something like a Wikepedia page, journalists have to cite it so readers can deem whether the Wikipedia page has reliable facts.
ReplyDeleteFormer CIA investigator, Mark Felt did the right thing by giving information about the Watergate Scandal to Woodward and Bernstein. If he did not provide information for Woodward and Bernstein, then one of the biggest political scandals in history would have gone unknown possibly. Sometimes, when I think about certain situations, I imagine what would have happened if the dots never connected. I have to say that if the connecting of Felt of Washington Post reporters never happened, many things about the scandal would've never been reported. Felt did a service to Americans by preventing Nixon's odd and unlawful administration from being in office for another term.
I think that attribution is an incredibly important element to keep in mind while writing something for a newsprint because without it there is no knowing how credible or factual a piece of information is. Also checking the validity of your information cannot be stressed enough because if you mess up a story for example getting a quote wrong or making up a source, then no one will trust your newspaper ever again and your credibility will be ruined. In reference to the Watergate reporters Woodward and Bernstein, personally I think the complexity of the entire writing process would be increased even with the advance technological items that we use today. I believe this because though computers can give you quick and easy information with little wait time, the credibility compared to a human source is terrible because as the Irish student showed with his wikipedia experiment, any person can put any kind of information up on the internet whether they are a witness or just a random commoner. I personally do think that Mark Felt, "Deep Throat", was a hero for divulging all the information that he did to Woodward and Bernstein. In my opinion, Felt is brave not a traitor because he gave information that could save the entire nation knowing that is anyone found out then he would be severely punished for his actions. Though at first he was a bit hesitant I think he made the right decision to help and anyone calling him a traitor is in the wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that Bernstein and Woodward would have had an easier time composing their different articles if the internet would have been in existence during that period in time. I most definitely think that because the Watergate scandal was one that had many different leads and angles, they would have had to work hard to prove that what ever information they obtained was true. I do think that "Deep Throat" was a hero. I believe that with out his participation the coverage of the scandal would have took even longer. Regarding the experiment with the quote, I must say I aam not surprised by the actions of the newspapers. If you think about, we choose to believe things and based on the severity of the belief, we take further actions to prove if something is true. I believe journalist have the obligation to make sure that what the put out is accurate and truthful.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely surprised by the results of the experiment conducted by Shane Fitzgerald. One of the most important goals in journalism is credibility and all the newspapers who used that quote damaged theirs. Based on what Emma said, you learn so much about the importance of double checking your sources in school. This is especially important in the field of journalism, so I was disappointed by the results. By attempting to be the first to report a story, the reporters ignore attribution. Then to make matters worse, only one publication came forward and admitted their mistake and made a formal apology to Fitzgerald. The other publications should have learned a lesson about attribution from this, rather than seeing Fitzgerald as a "vandal".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Molly that Woodward and Bernstein would have done great reporting on the Watergate case with today's modern technology. I think a lot of the process would have been sped up, allowing them to go more in-depth quickly. But on the other hand, the technology could have protected the Committee to Re-Elect the President as they exchanged information secretly.
Despite the article, I still believe Felt was a hero. The article states that the right thing for Felt to do was to talk to the president or resign because he disagreed with what was going on. I strongly disagree with this because I don't think Felt would have gotten through to president. They were already buried so deeply in this hole they were digging, there was no way one person would have changed his mind. It would a David vs Goliath situation and I think Felt would have been removed from his job if he said anything to the president and the lies would have continued. If he had gone with the choice to leave the job, it would have been the same results as talking to the president. He would leave his job and now have no way to stop what was going on. He knew the army he was facing was too strong and he had to help people in a way that would get their attention, through the news.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe results of Shane FitzGerald's experiment is very upsetting. I cannot believe that journalists would trust something from wikipedia without a source. I also can't believe more than one journalist would make this mistake. It's frustrating because as student, I wouldn't use anything from wikipedia to write an essay (because I have been informed by multiple teachers to not trust wikipedia), but this professionals that write news articles are. After learning about this experiment I am definitely more warily of the media.
ReplyDeleteAs, for Woodward and Bernstein, I have completely different feelings towards them. I think that their investigative reporting was absolutely brilliant. They uncovered the most scandalous presidential secret and saved us from having an "Imperial President". If they were working on the case now I think in some ways it would be easier and someways it would be harder. I think it would be easier because they would be able to type on a computer and they could use a computer to look at the transactions of the Committee to Reelect. On the downside, Since all of these documents would probably be online it would be much easier to get rid of them making it harder for Woodward and Bernstein to collect the facts. Also, people would be less suspicious because they probably wouldn't see anyone shredding documents or acting suspicious because the computer activity could occur in the privacy of the person doing the illegal act's office.
In some ways technology would help Woodward and Bernstein and in other ways it would hurt them.
Speaking of helping Woodward and Bernstein, Deep Throat, an anonymous source who helped Woodward and Bernstein has been revealed to be Mark Felt who was number two at the FBI at the time. Some people hail Felt as a hero for blowing the whistle on the Watergate and other people call him a traitor for not resigning and sneaking behind the FBI's back. I personally, wouldn't call him a hero or a traitor simply because I don't have enough information on what was going on at that time. I don't know why Felt chose to keep his job at the FBI because he obviously had some reason, but whether good or bad I will never know. In the end I will say I admire Felt's courage to think to himself that something wasn't right and to do something about it.
I am shocked that many professional news organizations merely copied and pasted information from Wikipedia without even checking to see if it came from a reliable source. It's incredibly important to build and maintain credibility with readers. It's sad and unfortunate that most organizations didn't even admit they made this mistake. It also makes me wonder if I have received incorrect information that is thought to be a fact just because it has been printed in the media numerous times.
ReplyDeleteI would have to guess that it would take longer for Woodward and Bernstein to get the story out today. The process of looking up information, addresses, and books would be much quicker. However, the information would be more tightly guarded, and it would be harder to get someone to attribute information to their name.
I considered Colson and Buchanan's perspective of the story, but I will still consider him a hero. Buchanan says Felt "[leaked] the results of an investigation to a Nixon-hating newspaper," so they look down on him. However, the results of the investigation really shouldn't be a secret. The Constitution was made so that people could control their government, and not so the government could control the people. The corruption in the Nixon administration needed to be stopped, and Felt was actually brave for helping the reporters when many other people wouldn't. Woodward and Bernstein's lives were at stake, so I can't even imagine what kind of pressure Felt was under. Some of their words, such as "Nixon-hating newspaper," also lead me to believe that they feel angry that Nixon's corruptness was revealed. Perhaps they felt ashamed that they didn't come forward themselves, and they are trying to make themselves feel better by putting Felt down.