News Buyer Beware-Be Skeptical Of All You Read

[babylonsister]

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/youre_a_customer_act_like_one.php

You're A Customer. Act Like One.
Ta Nehisi Coates
12 Jan 2010 08:21 am


In the Harry Reid post, we talked briefly in comments about the import of this alleged Bill Clinton quote. I think Matt sums up the problem pretty well:

It appears that some anonymous person told Heilemann and/or Halperin that Ted Kennedy told him that Bill Clinton said to Kennedy, of Barack Obama, that "a few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

I think this is exactly the way in which news consumers (all of us) should regard that quote. Longtime readers know that I'm far from an apologist for Bill Clinton. I would add that I generally have a high regard for John Heilemann as a reporter. With that said, I think the anonymous quote should generally always be regarded with skepticism, and the second hand anonymous quote just short of gossip.

This quote in particular exhibits the problem--the reader can't assess the information chain. One link in that chain is, by definition, unnamed. Another link is dead. That leaves the skeptical reader with a host of significant questions: Did Kennedy misinterpret Clinton? Did Kennedy hear Clinton correctly? Did the unnamed source misinterpret Kennedy? Did either of these men have an agenda or any sort of score to settle with Clinton? Is it clear that Clinton was referring to Obama's race? What about his age?

Here is thing--People lie/misremember/embellish/misinterpret all the time. Telling them that they don't have to put their name behind their charges does nothing to curb these proclivities. Beyond that, journalistic institutions are the product of human beings, and thus inherently flawed. And whereas some institutions employ a level of fact-checking, I've found that book publishers tend to be the least competent in that business. It's possible that the Clinton quote is accurate, and that he did mean it racially.

But the burden of proof isn't on Clinton, it's on those making the charges. I just don't think "I heard from this person that this dead person said that this person said this about this person" is persuasive evidence.

All of that said, the burden for all of this falls on you, the consumer. If you'd rather interrogate the meaning of Clinton's alleged statement, as opposed to interrogate the means by which it came to you, then this is the kind of reporting you'll get.

If, instead, you want a media that actually puts something on the charges it makes, if you want a media that takes as a given that everything about everyone can't be known, that understands both the potential and the limits, of its powers, then this is my word to you--Be Skeptical. Be skeptical of reporters, of their sources, and of the institutions they work for. Be skeptical of me, this post, and everyone here at The Atlantic.

But most importantly, be skeptical of yourself. A lot of us are predisposed to believing the worst about Bill Clinton. Are we believing this because it so closely tracks with what we long suspected? Beware of your own prejudices. Ultimately, you get the media you deserve.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Unless it's written by Paul Nobel Prize Jesus God Krugman

Then it's received wisdom directly from God Himself to his Only Son On Earth.

[napi21]

2. There's also another way iit could have been said. Someone

on DU posted this yesterday. Durin a conversation Clinton coulod have said "Yes Barack IS a smart guy and a very attractive candidate. Just think...a few years ago he would have been getting us coffee!"

I listened to Randy Rhodes yesterday. She mentioned how bothered she was that none of the quotes in that new book were sourced and confirmed! Jack Rice said the same thing on his show.

[babylonsister]

4. Exactly. "The press" in some instances are putting quotes

around what these clowns wrote even when said clowns didn't and wouldn't. Dishonest reporting at best.

[Qutzupalotl]

3. K&R