Poisoned tips

B.S Detector

Poisoned tips

On this page, we have often inveighed against the practice of El Nuevo Herald reporters (and, to a lesser degree, of Miami Herald writers) of relying exclusively on anonymous sources to write their stories. The harmful effects of that practice can be seen in the way several news agencies allowed themselves to be manipulated by the Bush administration last week and helped trigger an international incident.

Let’s start from the beginning. On Monday, Jan. 5, The Associated Press announced that, “according to American officials … the United States government is showing growing concern over what appears to be a joint effort by Cuba and Venezuela to cultivate anti-American feelings in Latin America, with money, political indoctrination, and training.”

“Government aides, who asked not to be identified, said Venezuelan resources may have been decisive in the toppling of Bolivian President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, who was known for his sympathy toward the government in Washington. An important beneficiary of the Venezuelan aid was Evo Morales, a charismatic Bolivian legislator … [and] a declared enemy of the capitalist system.” [Emphasis throughout is ours.]

“There is also evidence that the Venezuelan government aided opposition groups in Ecuador and Uruguay with money and human resources, the aides stated,” adding that “Chávez [also] has given support to Colombian rebels.” Meanwhile, the unnamed sources told The AP, Cuban President Fidel “Castro was furnishing training, advice and logistical support to leftist groups in the region.”

Another AP report the same day summarized the allegations by saying that “Privately, administration officials say Cuba and Venezuela are working together to oppose pro-American, democratic governments in the region. [The] officials say the alliance combines Castro’s political savvy with surplus cash that Chavez obtains from oil exports.” In all its reports, the news agency repeatedly said the “officials [were] speaking on condition of anonymity.”

The ‘domino theory’ revived

Also the same day, Jan. 5, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote in The Chicago Tribune that  “U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East and Central Asia ignores … [the] rising influence of a new clique of leftist, anti-American leaders,” such as Morales, Castro and Chávez. Who was Novak’s source? “Dissenting officials in the U.S. government.”

Raising the specter of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s and ’70s, Novak predicted “a latter-day domino effect,” saying his sources in the administration feared “that Colombia’s narcoterrorists will switch their growing and processing operations to Bolivia, making irrelevant U.S. counter-drug policy in Colombia.” Those were “ominous developments,” Novak said. 

Thus, in one report credited to unidentified Washington sources, the influential columnist managed to accuse two presidents and one legislator of destabilizing South America, from Bogotá to La Paz.

A (literally) vicious circle

The “anonymous sources at the White House,” as the Spanish news agency EFE described them, achieved their objective. Hours after the Associated Press report appeared, reporters for all the other news agencies peppered the State Department’s spokesman, Adam Ereli, with questions about it. And Ereli was ready and willing to expand on the allegations with answers that were widely disseminated and eventually earned the repudiation of the Cuban and Venezuelan governments, as well as legislator Morales.

Using allegations by unnamed “officials,” unsupported by any hard evidence, uncorroborated and unconfirmed by any reliable source, Ereli kept alive the campaign against Cubaand Venezuela. The Bush administration, which had planted the accusations, was commenting on them in a scene reminiscent of a dog chasing its own tail.

The State Department’s Under Secretary for Hemispheric Affairs, Roger Noriega, later gave impetus to the campaign by saying that the U.S. had evidence “of Cuba’s involvement in supporting elements that in various countries propose to destabilize democratic governments.” However, he provided no such evidence.

And Secretary of State Colin Powell, at a press conference Jan. 8, skirted a direct challenge from a reporter who asked: “What evidence does the U.S. have regarding the point made [by Noriega] on Cuba’s intention to destabilize the region?” Powell did not answer, responding instead to the second half of the reporter’s question, dealing with relations between Argentina and Cuba.

(Do you remember that the Bush administration ordered the invasion of Iraq because it had “conclusive proof” that Saddam Hussein was ready to unleash a war against the United States using “weapons of mass destruction”? We’re still waiting to see that proof.)

A dangerous practice

By then, the damage had been done, and relations between the U.S. and several Latin American countries had been soured by “unnamed administration officials” who had leaked unsubstantiated allegations to one major news agency and one leading political commentator.

Our contention is that anonymous sources are dangerous – particularly when they have political agendas – and their allegations should be taken with a pound of salt. Reporters must always assume that they are being used by such sources and must demand proof or confirmation of their allegations. Editors should insist that any story originated through an anonymous source be confirmed through two or three or many more reliable sources, preferably willing to be quoted by name.

(Two Miami writers who most often quote nameless people as their sources are Andrés Oppenheimer and Pablo Alfonso, as a reading of their articles in Herald archives reveals.)

Proper attribution is vital to the veracity and reliability of a reporter, a news agency or a newspaper. Yet, we often read outlandish statements in our Miami newspapers that are based only on allegations made by a single, unnamed source. The reader is manipulated by the reporter, who in turn is manipulated (willingly or unwillingly) by that source. That’s not responsible journalism. In fact, it’s rumor-mongering and in many cases it is slandering and scandalous.

The worst thing about unnamed sources is that they never retract or apologize or set matters aright. They don’t have to; they’re anonymous. They can do their damage with impunity. If their tips turn out to be inaccurate – or downright lies – it’s the reporter or the newspaper who’s left holding the bag.

So, next time you read an “exclusive” or a “scoop” that does not identify its sources, look at it with a jaundiced eye. We do.