Moral Relativism. We are floating through the ether, dood. Like, perception is reality and truth doesn't really exist, man. It is all like totally relative and freaky and stuff, ya dig?

And further, I'm at a loss as to how anyone could have imagined that invading Iraq could be anything but a gift to Iran - one they would quite reasonably take advantage of.

The stupidity and the hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

-- Jan R

Chalabi was a known Iranian asset. The nuts here didn't want to hear that.

According to more than half a dozen CIA operatives, including former clandestine DO officials, "Agency people became aware that Chalabi had probably been a long-time agent for Iran," in the words of one. These sources, including Whitley Bruner, say that Chalabi was long ago working for Iran in Lebanon, even before the agency recruited him in 1991 and stuck him in as head of the INC. Bruner said of Chalabi: "He never gave the agency any intel on Iran, never submitted to being debriefed.' adding, "He was Iran’s guy."

[...]

In any case, Chalabi got caught fabricating information and the CIA cut him off. He merely went to the Pentagon and the checks kept coming because his fabricated intelligence on Iraq's WMD was so essential to selling the war, this from a man who had already failed four CIA polygraphs so that the agency had issued a "burn" notice on him by the late 1990s.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/richard_sale_on.html

Meanwhile, FOOKIN' HRC...

http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/hillary-just-torpedoed-dncs-100-years.html

or click sig for linky

HRC's OK w/ "50 years in Iraq"

Our policy on anonymous sources is a good one, and bears repeating. It begins: "We resist granting anonymity except as a last resort to obtain information that we believe to be newsworthy and reliable." The information should be of compelling interest, and unobtainable by other means. We resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal attacks.

The idea that a news organization can conduct serious, aggressive journalistic inquiry without the use of anonymous sources is a fantasy. Some areas of coverage, notably involving national security, intelligence or sensitive diplomacy, and stories that reflect dissent within governments, companies and other institutions, necessarily depend on the ability to protect sources. The problem is, the credibility of those necessarily anonymous sources — and of our work — is undermined by the casual use of unnamed sources where no such protection is called for. We have taken several steps over the past year or two to tighten our policy on anonymous sources, and in keeping with the committee's recommendations we intend to reinforce them.

The responsibility to be vigilant about unnamed sourcing begins with the reporter and runs all the way up to the News Desk.

• Reporters must be more aggressive in pressing sources to put information on the record. We will give greater emphasis and attention to this in training and orientation programs. The committee noted in particular a shortage of practical guidance on how to persuade reticent sources to put information on the record. I have asked Al to draw on the committee’s research and prepare a primer on techniques that some of our colleagues have found effective. These suggestions will be incorporated in orientation and training materials, and will be made available on the in-house website.

• I have asked Al to assure that every desk has a clear procedure for impressing upon editors their responsibilities in the realm of anonymous sourcing: that (under a policy spelled out last year) an editor must know the identity of any unnamed source, that editors must press reporters to get information on the record, and that when anonymity is unavoidable editors must press for adequate disclosure — how the sources know what they know, what motivated them to share the information, and why they are entitled to anonymity. (Note: Not why they ASK for anonymity, but why we feel they are entitled to it.)

• Department heads must be prepared, in some cases, to hold back stories — even competitive stories — if the sourcing does not meet our standards. When in doubt, feel free to consult with a senior editor (Rick, Craig or Marty) or with me or Jill.

• Probably the single greatest purveyor of anonymous information is the U.S. Government (which can also be the loudest complainer about anonymous reporting.) We will continue to push, as the Washington Bureau has recently been doing, to put more official briefings on the record. It is patently silly for a Government spokesman, whose job is to articulate official policy, to brief a room full of reporters anonymously. At the same time, at least in the case of official briefings the reader knows who is ultimately accountable for this information - the Administration that authorized the briefing. I agree with the committee that we have little to gain by unilaterally walking out of off-the-record briefings, but we can set the bar higher for whether such briefings are newsworthy.

Just to be clear, this policy and these practices are to apply across all sections of the paper, from sports to government affairs, in features as well as hard news, in staff-written and freelance coverage.

Sourcing is an area where progress will be measured in increments, and subjectively. There is no reliable statistic that will tell us whether we are being sufficiently vigilant. But here’s my subjective standard of success: A year from now, I would like reporters to feel that the use of anonymous sources is not a routine, but an exception, and that if the justification is not clear in the story they will be challenged. A year from now, I would like every backfielder and copy editor to feel it is a right and a responsibility to challenge the use of an unnamed source when it does not measure up to our standards. I would like this to be central in our orientation of new reporters and editors, and a critical component in our mid-career training workshops. I would like care in the use of anonymous sources to be one of the criteria used in evaluating the work of reporters and editors.

June 23, 2005

"Assuring Our Credibility"

http://nytco.com/pdf/assuring-our-credibility.pdf

In addition to reaming out Gordon, this section of Keller's booklet on "credibility" should be slammed in the face of Richard Berke (who is, I understand, responsible for the front page) and the public editor Clark Hoyt among others at the Times.

There should be a firestorm of criticism of the Times any time Michael Gordon pulls this shit, and it should be targeted at the appropriate people:

Keller

Abramson

Geddes

Landman

Berke

And of course Sulzberger.