Who's the source?
I think about this neglected Substack a lot. I forget when I started it. Maybe late in the Trump administration? I struggled to find my stride and focus. A few of my posts turned into my thoughts on the news or my critiques of articles. That’s fine now and again, but I knew it wasn’t what I wanted to do here.
I want to focus on basic tools that help people read critically. It seems like a lot of people are hoping for tech companies, news anchors, and government or private institutions to determine what is misinformation, disinformation, or fake news. If you’ve made the mistake of going on Twitter, you may have spotted a few misinformation experts. I think we’re much better off when we do it ourselves by sticking to the basics - who, what, where, when, why, and how. We’re all capable of handling that task.
Who’s the audience? Realistically, potential employers. I’m casting my net pretty wide these days, and I know there is work in this field. I’d love to move to Finland! (The following headline is from Jenny Gross’s January 2023 article in The New York Times.)
How Finland Is Teaching a Generation to Spot Misinformation
The Nordic country is testing new ways to teach students about propaganda. Here’s what other countries can learn from its success.
I will likely delete many or all of the previous posts. There might be a few that are worth keeping, but I suspect many of them veered too closely towards the world according to me.
Enough of that.
Today I read an article by Natasha Bertrand in CNN. I thought it would make for a good classroom discussion about the use of anonymous or unnamed sources. I wrote down some discussion questions and added some quick answers to give an example of one of the directions I’m hoping to go here.
US warns allies at Munich that China may increase support for Russia
By Natasha Bertrand, CNN
Updated 8:08 PM EST, Sat February 18, 2023
Optional - start with a discussion about what’s happening in Ukraine.
Read the article. What’s the gist?
American officials are signaling that they are concerned about the possibility of China providing lethal aid to Russia.
What are the concerns based on?
Hard to say, really. Disturbing trendlines and signs later labeled as intelligence. The article doesn’t tell us anything more about the intelligence. It could be anything or nothing. The USG wouldn’t need particularly strong evidence to use an international security conference as an opportunity to influence Chinese decision-making.
Who are the sources of the information?
US officials familiar with the intelligence. The article mentions that the officials have shared the intelligence with allies, and US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken raised the issue with Chinese counterpart Wang Yi.
Why did CNN use anonymous sources?
The article doesn’t state a reason. Often you’ll see a disclaimer along the lines of associating anonymity with the ability to discuss classified information. The article as whole isn’t very informative, the intelligence cited is completely vague, and the source’s/sources’ actions line up with USG interests. Blinken discussed the information publicly in an interview.
How do journalism outlets decide when to use anonymous sources?
I did a quick search for CNN’s official policy, but I couldn’t find one. I assume they have a policy posted somewhere. NPR has a thorough explanation of its policy governing the use of anonymous sources (you have to scroll down a bit). I learned a few things from NPR’s guide. The CNN article wouldn’t meet the NPR requirements. I also found an interesting article by the Columbia Journalism Review that examined the use of anonymous sources at The New York Times before and after editor Bill Keller modified the paper’s policy.
I think it’s safe to say that news organizations claim they use anonymous sources sparingly and as a last resort.
Do you think the use of anonymous sources was justified?
No. They didn’t add anything to what Vice President Kamala Harris and Blinken said publicly. The article includes an editor’s note indicating that the article has been updated, so the Blinken portion may have been added in the update. My guess is that the reporter and CNN have a standing agreement for background or unattributed discussions with US officials during security conferences. In this case, though, it seems a bit like relaying messages for the USG.
Did you find the article informative? Credible?
I’ll answer the credible part first. I don’t doubt the reporter’s access to high level US officials, and I don’t question the reporter’s accuracy. But I didn’t find the article very informative. The concerted messaging for China is interesting given current tensions between the US and China and dueling spring offensives in Ukraine.