Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Anonymous sources, unnamed sources, fakes, and conspiracies

The use of anonymous sources by media outlets is a subject of never ending debates. In a spat earlier this year, even the venerable New York Times announced it would "tighten the screws" on anonymous sources.

Still, everybody continues to use them, including this blog. A couple of examples: We told the story of a young German who was insulted by a jobcenter employee as "arrogant and lazy" despite having lined up a "mini job" for the duration of a six week break during his vocational training. We told stories by OMG (Old Mustached German). Strictly speaking, these are not anonymous sources - they are known to the blogster but not known to you.

They are normally referred to as unnamed source, or "a source who wishes to remain unnamed". Yet, sometimes, a journalist will call them "anonymous" because he or she feels the source merits an extra layer of protection.

Newspapers and websites with good sized audiences are in a different position. They produce a lot of content, their writers tackle more subjects that they don't know much about, and they are being fed stories by all kinds of people.

Truly anonymous sources are a different ball game. The journalist and the readers don't know them.

So, things go wrong. Take the story of the "hidden server" of one Donald Trump as published by Slate. Upon closer look, the story was busted, but it still makes the rounds on social media.

Why did it get as far as it did?

The "tea leaves" wordpress blog that alleges Trump had a server connected to Russian bank Alfa is shoddy, without any substantial data to corroborate the story. It boasts a couple of lines in Russian. "Still waters run deep" is kind of nice but ultimately of no more value than the inverted R in Toys R us.

No technical understanding, an eager Slate (unlike the Daily Beast, it appears), and the certainty that the subject would generate lots of clicks.

There are lots of anonymous sites out there that never make the news, for example, another wordpress site called swisspropaganda, which has two "studies" on propaganda in Swiss media, namely the daily NZZ and Swiss public TV. The latter could be called a conspiracy site because it has small section on a Swiss researcher who asked too many questions about the 9/11 terror attacks. He lost his job and is now more or less marginalized.

The studies, though, are very interesting, their methodology is laid out clearly and based on the works of Ponsonby and Morelli.

The site has a section on censorship and self-censorship that is worth reading in light of the recent crackdown by the Turkish government on the Turkish media.

Frankfurter Allgemeine has a good new article on censorship in Turkey (beyond the well publicized arrests of journalists and closings of media outlets). The article points out that the German government financed a study on the ownership of Turkish media and how this relates to self-censorship.

As if the struggle with anonymous sources was not enough to drive journalists crazy, there are the fakes.

German radio Deutschlandfunk has an article on tracking fakes on the internet, saying it is a massive undertaking to avoid falling for fakes. The article explains that technical verification is still not reliable enough and that "gut feeling" is still important.

In short: We can't avoid to fall for fakes or propaganda altogether.

We can be skeptical, and that includes not believing everything that professional skeptics tell us.

One way to try and minimize being taken in is to have a look at yourself: what areas or topics make you vulnerable because of strong beliefs and emotional attachment?

Beyond puppies or kittens.

The blogster tries to get second opinions for much of what it* reads or watches. It helps to not see some sort of "hidden hand" behind everything. And, after the Syrian boy on the beach, it decided to stay away from photos of injured/starving/bombed children unless the photos come from the UN.

* Gender neutral is fun.
[Update] Usual suspects: grammar, spelling. Clarified use of  "unnamed" and "anonymous".

No comments:

Post a Comment