Three Questions For ABC News About Its Anthrax Reporting

No need for a big preamble. Dan Gillmor and I are posting these questions simultaneously. (Here's his case for them.) We think ABC News should answer them. They arise from two columns by Salon's Glenn Greenwald, who has been tracking this story for some time.

* Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News, in which he shows that ABC News was probably duped by someone on a story of huge importance, putting Iraqi fingerprints on anthrax attacks that actually came from the U.S at a time when the case for war with Iraq was beginning to get traction. (Salon.com, Aug. 1)

* Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation in which he makes the case for revealing the sources who completely misled ABC News or lied to it, including precedents where journalists have done just that. (Salon.com, Aug. 3)

If you want to understand our questions, go read Greenwald now.

Back? Greenwald raises many different kinds of questions. Some are aimed at a possible Congressional investigation, others at journalists willing to investigate further from here. On Saturday morning, Dan Gillmor and I had the same thought when we read Greenwald's post: "ABC News has to respond."

But to what, exactly? We tried to put it into three questions: tough but fair as people there would probably say on other occasions. And we're simply asking others who want to know the answers to post the questions in some form at your own site. I would call them "interlocking" and aimed at the same unknowns.

Three Vital Questions for ABC News About its Anthrax Reporting in 2001

1. Sources who are granted confidentiality give up their rights when they lie or mislead the reporter. Were you lied to or misled by your sources when you reported several times in 2001 that anthrax found in domestic attacks came from Iraq or showed signs of Iraqi involvement?

2. It now appears that the attacks were of domestic origin and the anthrax came from within U.S. government facilities. This leads us to ask you: who were the "four well-placed and separate sources" who falsely told ABC News that tests conducted at Fort Detrick showed bentonite in the anthrax sent to Sen. Tom Daschle, causing ABC News to connect the attacks to Iraq in multiple reports over a five day period in October, 2001?

3. A substantially false story that helps make the case for war by raising fears about enemies abroad attacking the United States is released into public debate because of faulty reporting by ABC News. How that happened and who was responsible is itself a major story of public interest. What is ABC News doing to re-report these events, to figure out what went wrong and to correct the record for the American people who were misled?

There are many other questions worth asking in what is still a very murky story. But Dan and I think these three go to the heart of what ABC ought to tell us.

My reasoning?

Though I am a frequent critic of the practice, I am not against the use of confidential sources. I am quite aware of how important it is in national security reporting to promise some sources confidentiality. And I am sympathetic to the pleas of journalists who have made contracts: "we have to keep our word or sources won't trust us." That is true.

But the only way such a system can work is when sources know: if you lie, or mislead the reporter into a false report you will be exposed. People who believe strongly in the need for confidential sources should be strongly in favor of their exposure in clear cases of abuse, because that is the only way a practice like this has a prayer of retaining its legitimacy. What's a "clear case" of abuse? Well, we have to argue about it-- and try to be clear. There's no other way. Each case is different. Each has particulars that count.

In the confidential sources system that we have, professionals keeping counsel with themselves bargain away the citizen's right to know. Sitting outside that transaction, we're supposed to trust them-- in the dark, as it were. Ninety-nine percent of the time, we are unable to judge how good a bargain they struck for us because the names of their sources remain cloaked.

Which is why we can never trust them if they can't take action when they get played. This looks like a case where ABC News got played. Looks like, I said. We can't know until the good people there answer some questions. These three would be a good start.

Also see my colleague Dan Gillmor, ABC Has Major Questions to Answer in Anthrax Story. "The network's hyperventilating broadcasts of leaked, false allegations purportedly tying the anthrax to Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime was bad enough. What the organization is doing now is journalistically unforgivable..."

Some other reactions:

Ex-Times-Picayune investigative reporter (and Pulitzer winner) John McQuaid says, "It's imperative for ABC to tell us what happened here." He also says: "Big media and the government are already in a kind credibility death spiral. This doesn't help."

At Media Nation, Dan Kennedy joins our campaign: "ABC News has some explaining to do."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum:

In practice, most journalists refuse to identify their sources under any circumstances at all, even when it's clear that those sources deliberately lied to them. But should that be the standard? Or is the profession -- and the rest of us -- better off if sources know that they run the risk of being unmasked if their mendacity is egregious enough to become newsworthy in its own right? I'd say the latter.

At a guess, Brian Ross is re-reporting this story as we speak. I'd be shocked if he were doing anything else -- and I'd say that part of that re-reporting ought to include a full explanation of exactly who was peddling the bentonite lie in the first place, and why they were doing it.

Scott Rosenberg: when sources lie or mislead, "the public good probably demands that you expose them."

Hmmm. Found this from March. Fox News says it got hold of an email:

In an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.

"Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared ... to duplicate the letter material," the e-mail reads. "Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same ... his knees got shaky and he sputtered, 'But I told the General we didn't make spore powder!'"

It's the [name redacted] part that intrigues me. If it was redacted by Fox, as opposed to whoever gave it to Fox, that would mean Fox knows something.

Shocker! Columbia Journalism Review isn't sure. At this point, nothing but questions. Liz Cox Barrett writes:

In ABC News's case, what point does it serve to out these people? Would it be instructive/cautionary to future lying sources, as Drum suggests? Is it just vengeance? What might be gained and lost if journalists in general adopted a you lie to me, I out you sort of ground rule? Would we get fewer leaks but leaks of higher quality? Missed stories? What if ABC News's sources didn't knowingly lie? If ABC News outs its sources in the face of public outrage (or, at least blogospheric outrage), what precedent does that set?

Translation: "Our constituency doesn't like ruckus this at all. Not one bit." CJR is promising to look into the matter some more this week, which is good.

Freelance journalist Wendy Hoke posts our questions at her blog and says that ABC's anthrax coverage throws a curious light on attempts to pass a Federal shield law.

The New Republic's Dayo Olopade: "Pressure on ABC to out their sources should be swift and sustained."

The New Republic's John Judis: "I join those who believe that some kind of congressional investigation is in order. There are too many echoes of Niger and uranium."

Except for this part, which doesn't echo with Niger at all: "Reports that the anthrax letters sent to the offices of Senate majority leader Tom Daschle contained the additive bentonite - known to be used by Iraq - were dismissed by the White House." The Guardian, Oct. 31, 2001.

Marcy Wheeler: "Who First Spread the Iraqi Anthrax Claim?" Important.

Lawbeat blog from the Syracuse University J-school: "Yet another illustration of the dangers of relying on anonymous sources and the rush to judgment when only part of the story comes out via shadowy channels."

Journalist Charles Feldman posts our questions: "It is vital that ABC News tells the American public how it came by its anthrax stories to see just who it was who manipulated the network and for what purpose."

Follow Jay Rosen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu

Comments

[Titonwan]

Has anyone been to Salon today? Glenn Greenwald's probably got something new on this. Brad's Blog is a good source for no BS news also. This story could be the key to putting Bushco in hot water and hopefully worse (prison).

[Passenger57]

How the media works today...
-Breathlessly report whatever the government hands you. First Ivins was testing his vaccine (why couldn't he do it in the lab? Was he going to mail Daschle his test vaccine as well?), and then he became a "homicidal-suicidal crazy person".
-Continue to whip up the "talking points" until desired result is achieved. With the Saddam stories, it was public support for the invasion of Iraq ; with this case, it's "Ivins did it,case closed".
-After it's too late (Invasion/­occupation of Iraq in full swing, Ivins is buried and case is closed),start reporting what should have been reported before.
-Show regret that reporting was so shoddy (Newspapers: print "apology" on page 8, TV : "How did we get it so wrong?"). Claim that you "got duped".Hang collective heads in shame.Promise that the next time,you will be skeptical of government reports from now on.
-Breathlessly report whatever the government hands you....

[krocklin]

There are some fishy things about this whole "suicide".
Let's not assume it really was one. All of his friends say it wasn't possible and don't believe it.
Add to this the government's interest in promoting the Anthrax scare to further it's plans to invade Iraq and youl'd be naive to take all that at face value, which the media in general seems to be doing.
And CIA operative knows you can easily "leak" and disseminate disinformation.
The public and media always eat it up as truth.

[tigs]

did i hear hannity has something to do with a b c, what do you expect from anything he has to do with,
so many misguided people coming out of the woodwork.

[heavyrunner]

There are professional standards of confidentiality regarding psychiatry. How can it be that we are treated to taped statements by Dr. Ivins' claimed counselor or whatever we are being told that woman's relationship to him was detailing the opinions of his psychiatrist?

This seems like something out of a Kafka or Orwell novel.

It does not pass the smell test.

It reeks of autocrats overreacting in fear that they are unable to any longer keep the lid on.

And there is no way for the viewer to know if ABC completely fabricated the claimed sources for their story or not because they have not told us their names, so we can't check. We need to move to a journalistic standard that gives little or no credence to stories based upon anonymous sources.

"He gave us the information with the understanding that he would remain anonymous because he was not authorized to release it." George Orwell

When you see the above disclaimer in a news article you should say to yourself - "I can't pay any attention to this because it could well be completely made up."

[heavyrunner]

40 years ago my high school journalism teacher taught us the difference between a story that quoted named sources and reports that quoted anonymous sources. She said that we should never believe stories that did not quote named sources because if we were not told who the sources were we had no way of checking to see if the story was completely made up or not.

The real truth, if this story about the anthrax supposedly coming from Iraq is completely investigated and the facts emerge, may be that more than just the anthrax itself is coming from black budget associated elements of the U.S. government.

[Quipman]

ABC should do the right thing and try to get out in front of this story. It would be very foolish of them to think that this story is going to fade away because it will not. Their chances of waiting for a John McCain victory to try to have him white wash it is zero because odds are very good that he will not be the next president. Besides he has questions to answer for in this matter also. Its better for ABC to take their lumps now than to hold out and take a chance of going down in flames and taking the network with them. The jig is up in a big way and the biggest news story in the last century is about to unfold one way or another.

[Titonwan]

I hope you're right. A lot of supporters are blogging on a lot of different websites, but how much rubs off on real life, or the military/industrial corporate news? This incident should be pushed by pac's like ACT BLUE or moveon.org or somebody (the more the better) in Congress. It's getting to be I can't trust PBS anymore. You know it's getting sad when they let you down. Or maybe (before the internet), I was just ignorant and happy... ah, those were the days! sigh... This should be tallied as more evidence for accountability for the last two cycles... you know what I'm talkin' bout willis.

[IthacaParent]

Thanks for an important posting. I just learned of Greenwald's argument this last week. The FBI is about to declare that a sole scientist acted alone to cause the anthrax attacks. If there really were four different USAMARID scientists telling the exact same lie to ABC News shortly thereafter, is it likely that someone beside these four coordinated their efforts? What is needed is a protest so 'newsworthy' that ABC's competitors are embarrassed if they don't cover it.One option would be a well-publicized boycott of ABC on Nielson ratings week. If that doesn't work, a mass boycott of all four networks the following ratings week.  Secondary boycotts are also very newsworthy, especially if failing to cover one might later harm one's own advertisers.

[Sundialsvc4]

It has been obvious, I think, from the very start that in the insatiable demand for war ... truth was a convenient casualty. "News" reporting was nothing more than propaganda. And the media went for it... still does. (What does it feel like to work for Pravda, especially now that Pravda has changed its tune and you haven't?)

All of this "eight-plus years of national hell" have been anything-but "victimless offenses." The consequence to the United States has been and continues to be terrible. The damage to the stature of the US in the eyes of the entire world may well be permanent. But to these neo-fascists (and that is what they truly are), there are no "consequences" to their misdeeds. It's all just "business" even though it's the devil's business. How ultra-refined anthrax managed to get just-here or just-there is simply something that no one could ever seem to get around to questioning. Or rather, thousands of people DID question but not a word of such thoughts was allowed to venture anywhere near the six o'clock news. They knew what they wanted to do, created a reason, ignored the UN, and "just did it."

More than a million people are now dead, or worse yet, maimed for life in unspeakable ways. But oh, the money that was made . . . and really now, "truth or lies, who cares?" Ahem.

[Stanley]

Another link in the puzzle was Bush the Father was heavily financially involved in a company that was given a huge contract to produce an anthrax vaccine immediately after this scare. Follow the money boys and girls and you know who is involved. Here's a story that might get some more traction. http://www.rense.com/general15/3wwho.htm

[Stanley]

Finally someone questions this case! When will there be reporting to the fact that the postal workers were left untreated while the Congress was given a different standard. Why wasn't an antibiotic given to the postal employees in time? When it was identified as Anthrax why was there a double standard in response?

It's about time somebody did some reporting on this story! This is the one that doesn't fit in the scheme of things and the only reason it is a topic is because the FBI is ready to let it go to bed. Something doesn't quite fit and the grand jury was never ready to indict this man as many would believe. They were far from it and we don't know what the case is before we let this go.

[Stanley]

This anthrax case is still in flux and let's not be so quick to put it to bed. Even though there was a suicide of a suspect, we still have some gaps in the evidence to conclude this was the person who did this. There is no evidence putting him in Princeton and there is some shaky ground on motive and who he sent the letters to.

Remember this was the first terrorist attack, not 911. This was a preamble for our fear and the fact that that fear led us into a war in Iraq and yet the 911 case came from Afghanistan makes this ABC story all the more important. Not only does it infer that there was a link to the white House and it's campaign to incade but it may even lead to others involved who made this happen to soften any opposition to the war. Why would this "lone psycho" send it to Tom Daschle? But a threat to the Democratic Senate leader would soften any wavering and leadership against an attack on Iran. It doesn't seem to serve the "lone psycho's" agenda but it does serve the White House's.

[ohnoyoudidnot!]

ABC has more than 3 questions to answer. It has proven itself to be more like Fox News than not.

[AntonGrambihler]

What does Senator John McCain know about the anthrax and when did he first know it?

[politicky]

Yeeesh, here's some money and political connections to follow:


Anthrax vaccine maker wins NIAID grants
Jul 29, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – Emergent BioSolutions Inc. recently announced it had secured two federal grants totaling $4.5 million for development of its botulism and next-generation anthrax vaccine candidates.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/bt/anthrax/news/jul2908grants.html


Board of Directors Emergent Biosolutions
http://investors.emergentbiosolutions.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=202582&p=irol-govboard

Director Joe Allbaugh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Allbaugh