Shooting The Messenger

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:30:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Digby writes:

Obviously, I have no way of knowing if any of this is true and nobody else does either. That's the beauty of anonymous sourcing, right? And that leads me to believe that while it's certainly possible that an administration official said this to him about the left, it's also entirely possible that Harwood made it up.

(Emphasis supplied.) Can Digby possibly believe this? That Harwood made it up? What a ridiculous thing to write. But Digby really does not believe that. She believes the WH official said it because "the official watches Harwood saying it on TV every other week and was currying favor with him." (Note that sometimes the progblogs like what Harwood says) You see? Harwood put a gun to the WH official's head and made them do it.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Trigger > Federalist Public Option? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Shooting The Messenger | 49 comments (49 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Doesn't matter if Digby believes it (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:42:49 PM EST

Those anonymous WH sources are getting tiresome and it is a way to call the media out for constantly using them as credible information resources.

I think the media has reason to want to degrade the bloggers, myself.

BS (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:50:04 PM EST

She is accusing the man of making up a quote. That is a serious charge where I come from.

Outrageous post from Digby.


Also, has she not noticed when (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:07:00 PM EST

Obama himself has dissed "his base"?

To me, the comments were consistent with what has been said in the past by this admin. The jammie reference was a nice touch this time around though . . .


Jayson Blair. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:54:46 PM EST

Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:55:34 PM EST

Jason Blair?!?! (none / 0) (#35)
by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:36:09 PM EST

Heck, Judy Miller.

Heck, Whitewater and Wen Ho Lee.

There's nothing new about fabrication.

That said, all of these efforts were disinformation campaigns -- as was Blair.

Harwood, OTOH, would be guilty of a "one-off." That seems to me much less likely.


Twaddle (none / 0) (#40)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:58:48 PM EST

Are you really so far gone that you can't acknowledge the distinction between reporters making stuff up and reporters taking dictation?


: He is (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 07:17:11 AM EST

: Are you really so hasty and anxious... (none / 0) (#49)
by lambert on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 07:48:08 PM EST

... to post some dull-witted snark that you can't see that "making stuff up" and "taking dictation" is the same analysis as a "one-off" (Jason Blair) and a disinfomration campaign (Judy Miller)?
(Except, of course, that "disinformation campaign" is a more descriptive and powerful analytical tool than "taking dictation," which is a mere metaphor.)
As for BTD, it's sad. I can't imagine what's happened to him; I'd need a specialist to confirm the idea that public option leads, first, to deterioration in the ability to analyze -- constantly having to come up with justifications for an inferior policy option will do that, and later, to an actual deterioration in the ability to read and write...

She was clever, though (none / 0) (#9)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:57:22 PM EST

She implied it could have been made up without actually coming out and saying so. Don't you think she was trying to make a point about these constant anonymous sources?


I found it not clever (4.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:59:11 PM EST

And irresponsible.


But, she used the word (none / 0) (#13)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:01:19 PM EST

possible rather than probable, which gives her an out.


: Not to me (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:15:50 PM EST

you sure you're an attorney? (none / 0) (#42)
by cpinva on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:07:46 AM EST

She is accusing the man of making up a quote.

she did no such thing. all she said was that it could just as easily have been made up by him, as given him by an "anonymous" white house source. and she's right, one or the other could be the case.

show me the exact quote from digby, saying "harwood made it up himself."


: I'm sure you are not a good one (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 07:16:42 AM EST

given that bit of reasoning.

Yup, totally boneheaded (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:49:44 PM EST

When will leftbloggers stop making excuses for the White House?

Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Jackson Hunter on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:55:56 PM EST

That would more than likely be never, although Digby isn't usually guilty (at least as often) of such things. Look at the bright side andgarden, at least she didn't call Harwood a racist.

Jackson


: I think Digby's problem with this (none / 0) (#38)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:13:32 PM EST

is akin to Jeralyn's concern with Polanski- its procedural- she really, really, really dislikes anonymous sourcing.

Simple answers to simple questions (none / 0) (#31)
by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:32:55 PM EST

Er, never?


More interesting to me is this: who (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:27:01 PM EST

has been on conference calls between bloggers and Obama admins.?

: Me too! (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:59:58 PM EST

My take on the Obama/WH (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by KeysDan on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:52:11 PM EST

advisor's comment was that it was a 'Murder on the Orient Express' deed bruited about by senior staff with the sentiment served up by any one of them to Harwood with all the frat boy maturity and cleverness of play with cardboard cut-outs.

Opportunity cost (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:39:32 PM EST

I'm as guilty of anyone for letting this silly story suck up my time... But one can only wonder what the opportunity cost of all the bandwidth spent on Harwood was. What did we miss in the "Look! Over there! Bloggers in pajamas!" brouhaha?

I don't think he made it up ... (none / 0) (#3)
by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:49:46 PM EST

but "adviser" is the most amorphous term you can attach to an anonymous source. It can fit a wide range of people. Many who don't even come close to speaking for the administration.

My guess is it's a friend of Harwood's who has served the administration in some minor advisory capacity.

Reporters have been known to use the phrase "White House sources say" to refer to something another White House reporter told them.

That's not true actually (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:51:44 PM EST

"White House advisor" means works for the White House.

"Dem strategist" means outside the Administration.

What's missing from Harwood's report, and worthy of criticism, is the level of the White House Advisor - "senior" or otherwise.


Don't forget The Source hisself! (none / 0) (#8)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:55:46 PM EST

Dicky Cheney was caught playing "Anonymous Source" - so anyone from the mail clerk to the Veep himself can play that game.

One way to get smashed reading the paper would be to play a drinking game of taking a drink every time you saw some nameless source attributed. I bet no one could make it through more than a couple sections sober. The same thing goes for teevee infotainment.


If you did that could you really make it through (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:15:22 PM EST

the frontpage somedays? Imagine reading the runup to Iraq, or say Whitewater coverage- you'd be dead or Yelstein by A-3 at the latest.


I think the grant of anonymity here (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:58:46 PM EST

is entirely defensible.

I do think Harwood should have given a better description of the level of his source.

Let me give you an example of something - I think this might be Emanuel or Messina. But I have no way of knowing whether that is even possible.


: I understand (none / 0) (#21)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:19:10 PM EST

the idea of affording some protection to sources, but when it comes to sourced quotes, the White House rarely ever seems to provide them.
If you want sourced quotes, go to the Senate or the House or Representatives. If you want Anonymity Anonymous - that's the White House. Are these official leaks or unofficial leaks? Are they trial balloons or meant to control the media cycles?
If you want The Truth(tm), should you bother to pay attention to unsourced quotes at all?

anonymous WH sources? (none / 0) (#10)
by SOS on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:58:16 PM EST

or just another one of the numerous political action committee's crawling all over The Hill like ants?

Not sure you're right ... (none / 0) (#14)
by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:03:00 PM EST

Harwood uses the term "Obama adviser" not "White House adviser" in his walk back:

"My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren't about the LGBT community or the marchers," he wrote. "They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo -- and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama's liberal base..."

But (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:09:23 PM EST

there's also this:

"For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely-divided country is complicated and difficult," said Harwood, who has solid sources inside the Obama White House and routinely talks with top administration officials.

In an email to the Huffington Post on Monday, Harwood clarified that the quote was not meant to convey any displeasure on the part of the administration for the gay community's public advocacy.
"My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren't about the LGBT community or the marchers," he wrote...."

: Still not convinced ... (none / 0) (#18)
by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:14:31 PM EST

he never actually uses the term "White House adviser."

As I understand it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:15:16 PM EST

this was intended to signal it was a SENIOR advisor.


Oops ... (none / 0) (#15)
by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:04:51 PM EST

put this in the wrong place. This was meant as a response to comment #5.


Is it really that important? (none / 0) (#26)
by Rashomon66 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:57:48 PM EST

Seriously.
There are far more important things than speculating about anonymous sources saying things that aren't really that clear in the first place.
If you really think Obama said this about left liberal bloggers then just say it.
I don't think he would.

That doesn't mean there isn't work to be done with regards to gay rights. But if you think any major politicians will change laws or start talking about the marriage rights overnight you have to be nuts.
The only reason Bill Clinton now says he favors gay marriage is because he is no longer running for office. I expect Bill Frist or Bob Dole to come out in favor of gay rights any time now.

: Is accuracy important? (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:01:28 PM EST

Why yes. I think it is.

Digby's speculation makes more sense (none / 0) (#28)
by Anne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:14:31 PM EST

taken in isolation, but there has been too much of this kind of anonymous chatter for anyone to have too many doubts that this is the message the adninistration wanted to send.

The level of denial among some in the blogosphere is really kind of mind-boggling, but I say that as someone who was never taken in by the Obama hype.

Maybe someday some scientist will discover why some of us are immune.

It makes no sense in any context (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:16:15 PM EST

Reporters making up quotes is NOT the problem in journalism. Never has been.


That's fair, BTD; I was thinking more (none / 0) (#32)
by Anne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:34:10 PM EST

of whether it made sense for digby to speculate than I was about the fact that speculating is the equivalent of accusing Harwood of making up quotes.

Whatever one can say about the state of the media, I do not believe it has gotten to the point where reporters are making up quotes and sourcing them to "anonymous" in order to s-x up their stories or their commentary.

It's been a long day.


: I quoted digby (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:35:54 PM EST

"made it up" were her words and what I objected to.

: Not to mention that (none / 0) (#41)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:02:23 AM EST

Harwood probably has less need to make up quotes from inside the Obama adminstration than any other reporter out there right now.

One of the things about government work... (none / 0) (#30)
by christinep on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:30:31 PM EST

What I learned from 30 years in government is the old "take with a grain of salt" comments that started with "someone close to the Administrator said," "I've heard from Washington that," "Washington (or Headquarters) wants," and "My sources at the White House tell me," etc. You get the point. Its interesting; and, it is sometimes even true. More often than not, a lot of sentences (even paragraphs) and context were ignored. More so, one would find that it reflected the viewpoint and push of the initial "source." Of course, even with that experience, we would all scurry around when the periodic "they don't really like you all in the Regions" (trans.: cuts, changes, circuitousness) leaks were reported. Granted, my recollection deals with a smaller set of issues; nevertheless, there usually are reasons for these "messages." And, it is usally helpful to "consider the source."

That is a different argument (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:35:13 PM EST

Digby posits that the quote is "made up." That is an irresponsible allegation.


: You are correct (none / 0) (#37)
by christinep on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:40:51 PM EST

There certainly is no indication that Harwood contrived the quote. Actually, from a personal standpoint, I have always found Harwood to be rather precise and genuine. Yet, we do not know his source nor the motives or other aspirations of said source. Sources can be persuasive and accurate; sources can be persuasive and off the mark.

It has been obvious to me (none / 0) (#43)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:34:58 AM EST

that Obama thinks about the blogging left and the blogosphere NOT VERY OFTEN. It isn't as if he really needed their help to win the election. He literally only needed to not be a Republican. Now it's time for Obama to play the cards that the whole Democratic party came onboard to get to play and he's playing a lot of Jokers. And the blogosphere is "shocked" that they don't mean squat to him? Whatever they could have been worth as far as credibility, most sold out long ago.....not Digby.......but most did.

A quick scan of DK reveals, at least (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:38:31 AM EST

as far as FP, only Harwood's explanation he mean just gay rights, is the only reference to this kerfluffle I saw. Maybe Kos has been on those blogger conference calls w/WH?


: Predictable (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:55:47 AM EST

He only blows off the freaky gay fringe left huh? Not the freaky healthcare for everyone left or the freaky save people before Wall Street left or the super freak freak freaky antiwar left though.....nope.....he doesn't completely blow them off. He only blows off that insane LBGT left. What a fantasy :)

: Oops. Left out "he didn't mean just (none / 0) (#48)
by oculus on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:29:21 AM EST

gay rights."