The New York Times reports that Chelsea Clinton will be a full time special correspondent for NBC News, starting more or less immediately. Salon's Glenn Greenwald connected this news to the media careers of Meghan McCain (MSNBC), Luke Russert (NBC) and Jenna Bush Hager (NBC), and reached this conclusion about the state of our meritocracy:

We all owe our gratitude to NBC News for single-handedly correcting the shameful, long-standing exclusion from our media discourse of the views of young, journalistically accomplished heirs and heiresses to political power and great fortune; it is long overdue that former NYT executive editor Bill Keller, son of the CEO and chairman of Chevron, be joined by the next generation.

The only other thing to add is that the Times' account included this anonymous source, who offered the kind of remarkable insight one expects from someone who is granted anonymity to speak the truth:

One person close to Ms. Clinton said she had been quietly raising her profile for some time, though the public had not been completely aware of it. That person, who asked not to be identified because of a reluctance to speak for her, said Ms. Clinton had been more active in causes backed by her family’s William J. Clinton Foundation.

FAIR editor Jim Naureckas tweeted recently, "NATO's installation of an Al Qaeda-friendly government in Libya is one of 2011's most underreported stories." He's got a point. The Washington Post today published a pretty interesting look at how the Libyan government viewed the jihadist threat, thanks to some documents recovered in Tripoli:

The documents were uncovered days after the regime fell to rebel fighters led in part by a self-proclaimed former Islamist, Abdelkarim Belhadj. He has declared himself the leader of the "Tripoli Brigade" that spearheaded the defeat of Gadhafi loyalists in the capital. Belhadj is the former commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist organization that fought alongside Afghan insurgents against Russian occupation in the 1980s.

So what does the U.S. government have to say about this? Plenty--but you can't quote them by name:

U.S. officials on Tuesday did not dispute Belhadj's Islamist roots but played down the connections.

"Some members of LIFG in the past had connections with Al-Qaeda in Sudan, Afghanistan or Pakistan, and others dropped their relationship with Al-Qaeda entirely," said a senior U.S. official who closely tracks Islamic terrorist organizations. "It seems from their statements and support for establishing a democracy in Libya that this faction of LIFG does not support Al-Qaeda. We'll definitely be watching to see whether this is for real, or just for show."

The official insisted on anonymity in discussing sensitive case files about terrorist organizations.

That seems like a pretty flimsy rationale for granting a source anonymity.

U.S. officials seem to be making progress in convincing Iraqi politicians to let some troops stay in Iraq beyond the December withdrawal deadline. The Washington Post weighs in today (8/4/11) and gets some anonymous straight talk:

"There seems to be broad partnerships and political coalitions emerging that take tough decisions," said a senior U.S. Embassy official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the issue frankly.

Of course, one way of reading that justification for anonymity is that an official speaking on the record would be less than frank. If that's worth granting a source anonymity, then it might be worth it. So bring on the frank talk! The rest of the paragraph:

"This is very good, because we don't want to be the security partner to a dictatorship or to a one-party regime, but rather, we believe we should have acceptance by a broad range of political forces in this country."

The "frank" talk is that the United States does not want to partner with a dictatorship? Perhaps the source needed to remain anonymous because he or she was aware of the absurdity of this.

"Iran arming Iraq insurgents" was last month's story. Today's papers are telling a different story; the new line being pushed by U.S. officials is that Iran is supporting Al-Qaeda.

Today's Washington Post:

Iran Allows Money, Recruits

to Reach Al-Qaeda, U.S. Says

'Secret deal' allegedly supports activities of terrorists in Pakistan

In the New York Times:

Treasury Accuses Iran

of Aiding Al-Qaeda

Associated Press:

U.S. Accuses Iran

of 'Secret Deal' With Al-Qaeda

The Post calls this "the most serious U.S. allegation to date of Iranian aid to the terrorist group"-- though it later notes that "U.S. officials have repeatedly accused Iran of assisting Al-Qaeda, links between the two have been difficult to prove." This time around the charge is that a Syrian middleman operating from Iran transfers money and recruits to Al-Qaeda leaders based in Pakistan.  Iran denies any role in this alleged scheme, and the evidence offered in the stories amounts to statements from U.S. officials asserting that this is happening.

The notion that Shi'ite Iran would be working closely with Sunni fundamentalist Al-Qaeda is a leap, as some of this coverage suggests.

But the Times account, by Helene Cooper, seems to go the furthest in helping to shore up the U.S. case,  making the bizarre argument that the existence of U.S. allegations and the Treasury Department sanctions against individuals in the supposed network mean the case against Iran is solid:

The officials said the sanctions were nonetheless meaningful because they would serve to demonstrate that Iran was working with Al-Qaeda.

That's like saying that the fact that the U.S. invaded Iraq to destroy its WMDs means Iraq must have WMDs.

When not providing justification in its own voice, the Times allows U.S. officials to anonymously push their argument further:

Indeed, one senior administration said the action sought to expose both "a key funding facilitation network for Al-Qaeda and a key aspect for Iranian support for international terrorism."

"Our sense is this network is operating through Iranian territory with the knowledge and at least the acquiescence of Iranian authorities," the official said in a conference call with reporters.

Of course, if Iranian officials were really allowing this to happen, U.S. officials would probably say so on the record.

Floating allegations about an Iran/Al-Qaeda connection isn't new. For a good dissenting take on media coverage from last month, you can read this piece from Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.

And it's worth pointing out that the other Iran story, which alleges that Iran is shipping arms into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers, isn't going away either.

From the L.A. Times (6/9/11):

A tattered tent, shreds of carpet and other scorched debris were all that were left of a favored retreat of Moammar Gadhafi just outside the Libyan capital, the aftermath of what appeared to be a NATO bombing run.

Was the usually idyllic nature preserve a "command and control" center used by the Libyan military? Or was this an example of NATO attempting to assassinate the longtime Libyan dictator?

A NATO official reached in Naples, Italy, late Wednesday emphasized that the Western alliance does not target people for killings, and the official would not confirm that North Atlantic Treaty Organization warplanes had even struck the site Tuesday. "It doesn't sound like that would be the subject of our attention, so I'm not sure what you were shown there," said the official, who under NATO rules could not be identified by name.

Remember, it's Libya's pathetic PR that gets ridiculed in the U.S. press. NATO officials are granted anonymity to make their spectacularly implausible claims.

A headline today at the Washington Post (6/3/11) reads, "A Reprieve for Higher-Ed Companies?" A more honest headline might have been, "A Reprieve for Us?"

The story discusses congressional action on a bill that would increase oversight of private, for-profit colleges, since many students take out government-subsidized student loans in order to attend such schools. Critics argue that the schools do a poor job of preparing students for the workforce.

The Post discloses its interests, though a bit late--in the 14th paragraph of a 22-paragraph story: "Half a dozen leading firms in for-profit education--including the Washington Post Co. on behalf of its Kaplan education division--and the trade group Coalition for Educational Success spent a total of $4.3 million lobbying in 2010 and at least $2 million this year."

My favorite part of the story is this:

After an intense lobbying campaign by the for-profit education industry, the regulation--which is supposed to push for-profit companies into designing programs that will lead students to good-paying jobs--was pared back from a draft proposal that was released last summer.

"I wouldn’t say people are dancing in the streets," said one lobbyist who asked for anonymity to protect relationships with clients and officials. "But it is certainly an improvement over the proposed regulation."

The Post grants anonymity to a lobbyist who could very well be working on the Post's side in this debate? That's a new one.

The Washington Post's Greg Jaffe (4/1/11):

Some of the United States' partners have acknowledged that the initial descriptions of the intervention in Libya no longer apply. "What is happening in Libya is not a no-fly zone," a senior European diplomat told reporters, speaking on the customary condition of anonymity. "The no-fly zone was a diplomatic thing, to get the Arabs on board. What we have in Libya is more than that."

Is "customary" anonymity something like, "Now I can tell you the truth?"

(In case you're curious, the Washington Post's official policy on anonymous sourcing is that "granting anonymity to a source should not be done casually or automatically.")

From the Washington Post piece today (2/15/11) about TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky's resignation:

"We're fine with critics," said one Treasury official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak more candidly. "[But] he's been consistently wrong about a lot of big things."

That's a pretty serious charge to level at someone--which is probably why you'd do so anonymously, since then you don't have to back it up.  Why the Post would print it is another matter entirely. The fact that they would refer to this as a "candid" assessment is totally puzzling. Read the rest of the article, though, and you come away with a sense that Barofsky upset the wrong people:

He quickly emerged as an aggressive overseer, viewed as a much-needed cop monitoring for waste and fraud within TARP by some lawmakers and watchdog groups, and, by Treasury officials and financial-industry representatives, as a self-promoter whose overreaching investigations scared some needy banks away from participating in the federal aid program.

In his sometimes scathing reports to Congress, Barofsky showed little reluctance in criticizing administration officials on everything from how their lack of transparency was fueling "anger, cynicism and distrust" to how their foreclosure prevention efforts had fallen well below expectations.

If the Post really believes that Barofsky was "wrong about a lot of big things," it should explain--or get someone else to do so.  Giving a government official--who has presumably been on the receiving end of Barofsky's criticism--a chance to hit back anonymously is poor journalism.

Anonymous Israeli officials are weighing in at the New York Times today. Let's remember the Times has some rules regarding the use of anonymous sources:

The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy. When we use such sources, we accept an obligation not only to convince a reader of their reliability but also to convey what we can learn of their motivation--as much as we can supply to let a reader know whether the sources have a clear point of view on the issue under discussion.

The rules also stipulate:

• "We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available."
• "We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack."
• "Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment, or to make an unremarkable comment appear portentous."

With that, example No. 1 comes from a piece about the effect of the leaked Palestine papers on future negotiations:

Another top Israeli official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the big question for him was whether the revelations would make the Palestinians more timid in future negotiations because of public indignation. He said they seemed to be walking away from their concessions since they were revealed.

Alternatively, the official said, the opposite could be true--the Palestinian public could get used to the kind of concessions needed for a deal now that they were in the open, and that would ease future talks.

So things could turn out one way, or the other way. What a revelation.

In another piece on the political upheaval in Lebanon, we get this:

"We are concerned about Iranian domination of Lebanon through its proxy, Hezbollah," said an Israeli official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the situation in Beirut was not yet clear.

Presumably said official will speak on the record once things in Lebanon are "clear."

Of greater concern, though, is the charge that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. This is often treated as a fact in U.S. media discussions, though a few months ago (10/17/10) an expert on such matters wrote this letter to the Times (see bold):

To the Editor:

Joe Klein, in his review of A Privilege to Die, by Thanassis Cambanis ("The Hezbollah Project," October 3), says Mr. Cambanis fails "to put Lebanese Hezbollah in the context of Iran's larger terrorist network." However, Mr. Cambanis is correct in his presentation; the idea that Hezbollah today has a place in Iran's "larger terrorist network" is ill-informed. Hezbollah has not been under Iranian political or military control for nearly a decade. It is now an organization operating on its own recognizance, although it continues to receive a fraction of its operating funds from Iran--much of it in the form of religious charitable contributions from its Shia brethren.

WILLIAM O. BEEMAN
Minneapolis
The writer is a professor and the chairman of the anthropology department at the University of Minnesota.

The lead of the New York Times story today (12/2/10) on the FCC's new internet plan:

The plan from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to ensure an open and neutral Internet drew mixed reviews on Wednesday from consumer advocates and Internet service providers, presenting the agency with an uncertain way forward as it considers new broadband regulation.

Of course, there are many who think the plan most assuredly does not "ensure an open and neutral Internet"--leading to some decidedly unmixed reviews.  See the response from Free Press president Josh Silver, for instance: "FCC Chairman Announces Fake Net Neutrality Proposal."

In an unrelated bonus, the Times offers a novel explanation for relying on an anonymous source:

Now, Mr. Genachowski thinks he has found a way around the court's ruling, according to a senior FCC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the chairman's proposal was subject to change.

Well, if that's the standard for granting anonymity--which would seem to violate Times policy--then sources can only be named when discussing events and policies that will never change. Like the Times' use of anonymity to shield the powerful from accountability, apparently.

From one of the Washington Post's stories about WikiLeaks:

A senior U.S. intelligence officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be identified, said: "No one should think of American diplomats as spies. But our diplomats do, in fact, help add to our country's body of knowledge on a wide range of important issues. That's logical and entirely appropriate, and they do so in strict accord with American law."

The source is anonymous because he must remain...anonymous. Got it.

You may have heard that Barack Obama shared some thoughts about Fox News Channel in a recent interview with Rolling Stone. When asked about the channel, Obama pointed out that media outlets with a political perspective have been relatively common throughout U.S. history, but that he believed Fox's perspective is "ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class."

The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg had a piece (10/2/10) on Fox's political activism this year--particularly News Corp's million-dollar donations to the Republican Governors' Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But Fox's response to Obama's criticism of the network gets the last word in the piece--in the form of an anonymous source:

An executive at Fox News who agreed to be interviewed on the condition of anonymity expressed "astonishment" over Mr. Obama's focus on the network. "We are so in his head," he said. "Can you believe with all the other things going on in this world he's preoccupied with Fox News?"

The Times--mostly in the wake of the Iraq War/Judith Miller debacles--attempted to clamp down on the use of anonymous sources. But such sourcing patterns persist. Former Times public editor critiqued the paper on these failures a few times, in one case (3/21/09) pointing to specfic rules that would seem to apply here:

The policy says anonymous sources should be used only as "a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information is not available any other way."

And:

The policy says the newspaper will not allow personal or partisan attacks from behind a mask of anonymity.

Rutenberg's piece seems to fail on both those counts. You learn nothing of real value from the anonymous Fox source, and it would seem to constitute an attack of some sort, since the Fox executive is saying that Obama is "preoccupied" with Fox News instead of dealing with more important matters.

We often heard during the WikiLeaks controversy that civilian deaths in Afghanistan are well-covered in the corporate media, so the revelations in the documents about such incidents were "old news."

A report in today's Times from Rod Nordland ("Afghans Say NATO Strikes Killed Civilians," 8/6/10) teaches a useful lesson in how such reporting appears.

There are actually two different attacks discussed in the piece, but the more revealing coverage concerns fallout from a July 26 attack. The Afghans say 52 civilians died. But the verdict from the U.S./NATO side is very different--and the Times delivers it via an anonymous source (emphasis added):

In another case of civilian casualties, Afghan and coalition officials continued to dispute what happened in the Sangin district of Helmand Province on July 26, when United States Marines fired a missile at a house from which they had received gunfire.

A senior intelligence official for the international forces, speaking on condition of anonymity as a matter of policy because of his position, said that about six civilians were killed, as well as Taliban fighters, for a total of 14 deaths. The civilians were killed when the Marines fired a shoulder-mounted Javelin rocket at a house where Taliban had taken up positions on the roof, while keeping civilians trapped inside.

The unnamed official added more details about the level of U.S. restraint:

"The Marines were unbelievable in the length of the time they waited to return fire," the official said, adding that they took fire from the house for more than four hours before the decision to fire the rocket was made.

So was it six dead civilians or 52? The Times gets more from their source:

Asked to explain the divergence in accounts, the international force official said, "In Helmand, there are significant political challenges going on, to put it mildly." In addition, coalition forces were unable to visit the scene because the Taliban controlled the area, the official said.

In passing, the Times quietly noted that "officials from the international force denied at first that civilians had been killed."

In other words, the people who at first said they didn't kill anyone at all now say that they killed a few people--far fewer than the Afghans are claiming were killed.  But you shouldn't trust those people anyway. And also, please don't use my name.

A late December NATO attack in eastern Afghanistan reportedly killed nine people--or, according to NATO, nine militants. According to Afghans, nine young civilians. The first round of reporting showed that some outlets, as usual, were willing to take the U.S./NATO line at face value--so long as that line was delivered anonymously, as in the December 28 New York Times:

A senior NATO official with knowledge of the operation said that the raid had been carried out by a joint Afghan-American force and that its target was a group of men who were known Taliban members and smugglers of homemade bombs, which the American and NATO forces call improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

According to the NATO official, nine men were killed. "These were people who had a well-established network, they were IED smugglers and also were responsible for direct attacks on Afghan security and coalition forces in those areas," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue.

"When the raid took place they were armed and had material for making IEDs," the official added.

Senior American military officials cautioned that such episodes tended to be complex and that because of the anger about civilian casualties, Mr. Karzai was under enormous pressure to speak out quickly, sometimes before investigations were complete. NATO will investigate the killings in conjunction with Mr. Karzai's staff, the official said.

A triumph for propaganda: assurances from "officials" that the raid killed exactly who they say it did, and the reminder that another version of reality may soon emerge from the Afghan side, due to "anger" that their politicians must react to. The Times account added:

But the conflicting accounts and Mr. Karzai's public statements underlined the tensions over civilian casualties that have become among the most contentious issues between the Afghan president and his international backers, as well as one of the most politically fraught for Afghans.

One has to think that maybe it's not "conflicting accounts" that bother Afghans. It could be their dead relatives.

The Los Angeles Times (11/2/09) gives readers a mostly upbeat account about the use of unmanned drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan-- weapons that have killed hundreds in Pakistan in recent years. But Times reporter Julian Barnes tells us their popularity with U.S. military officials has "changed the nature of the current policy debate in Washington."  The evidence:

The technology allows us to project power without vulnerability," said a senior Defense official. "You don't have to deploy as many people. And in the modern age you want as little stuff forward as long as you can achieve the effects as if you had lots of people forward."

But some officials caution that policymakers should not rely too heavily on the unmanned drones.

"It has made some people feel there can be a pure counter-terrorism mission without any counter-insurgency strategy," said a government official. "But that isn't truly viable without taking on a certain amount of risk."

Huh. So some anonymous government officials really seem to love them, while other anonymous government officials think they should be used in conjunction with other types of warfare. What a debate!

In the same piece, readers are told that in Pakistan the drones are unpopular--"much of the population believes they have killed civilians as well as militants." In other words, they believe in things that happen to be true.