The Invisible Hand Meets the Anonymous Source

or

Karl Rove Meets Tom Sawyer


Many people have noted that exchanging anonymity or, much worse, a favorable slant for access is bad for journalism. They contrast such an exchange made for information which would otherwise remain hidden with the current practice of making it in order to be the one who gets to report the latest talking point. Access to, say, the White House does not serve the public interest. The White House wants to get its talking points out and will do so in exchange for nothing if it has to. However, the private interest of the reporter and his or her employer is served by such an exchange. People like me want to know what the White House line of the day is and, therefore, read the favored channels.

Often selfish actions serve the public good. For example a publisher who just wants to sell papers will hire an editorial staff which reports matters of public interest. A reporter who is interested only in professional success will attempt to uncover important news. The widespread interest in arguments which will certainly be made public somewhere somehow separates the private interest of reporters and newspapers from the public interest.

The argument "if I don't do this someone else will" is not generally considered to be public spirited, but in this case it is the thought which separates the reporter who serves the public even when dealing with spinners and the reporter who damages the public interest. It doesn't matter if Rove leaks via one reporter or another. It is very important that as few reporters as possible slant the news to please Rove. In practice Murdoch/Moon journalists will, but it is possible for some newspapers to refuse to compromise in exchange for access. The American people will get their spin in any case.

I never believed that bit about Tom Sawyer getting people to pay him for the priviledge of whitewashing a fence until I saw journalists begging for a chance to Whitewash the worst administration ever.