Petrelis Files

NYT Fails Anonymous Rule; VP, Bush Disaster Bookend Pix; Laura on Looting, etc.

A round-up of curious things on the web over the weekend, starting with proof the New York Times inconsistently applies its anonymous sources rules.

Director of FEMA Stripped of Role as Relief Leader
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: September 10, 2005

"[...] A senior administration official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Chertoff, whose department includes FEMA, told Mr. Bush on Wednesday that he was thinking of moving Mr. Brown aside and replacing him with Admiral Allen [...]

"A Republican with close ties to the White House, also speaking on the condition of anonymity for the same reason, said Mr. Bush had made clear that he wanted a change, a view reinforced by Vice President Dick Cheney's fact-finding trip to Mississippi and Louisiana on Thursday [...]" [Print version]

The Times fails to inform readers of the reasons why the anonymous White House official wanted, and was granted anonymity. Two paragraphs on, the Times references another GOP source given anonymity, only in this instance, the paper says this source requested anonymity "for the same reason" as the White House advisor.

But the Times never explained what the reasons were for the advisor requesting he not be quoted by name.

Here's the same paragraph about the Republican leader from the Times' web version of the story:

"[...] A Republican with close ties to the White House, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bush had made clear that he wanted a change, a view reinforced by Vice President Dick Cheney's fact-finding trip to Mississippi and Louisiana on Thursday [...]"

Hmmm, those four little words, "for the same reason," made it into print in the Times, but were omitted from their web site.

In May when the Times published its "Preserving Our Readers' Trust" report, special attention was given to how and when the paper would use unidentified sources.

"When anonymity is unavoidable, reporters and editors must be more diligent in describing sources more fully. The basics include how the anonymous sources know what they know, why they are willing to provide the information and why they are entitled to anonymity," the report said.

I'd say the Times is not living up to its own standards here. First, it may seem reasonable to describe one source as senior administration official, but it certainly is not satisfactory that a source is just a GOP leader linked to the White House. Is that source from the RNC, someone in Congress? More information should have been given readers.

Second, readers have no idea how the Times' anonymous sources know what they do and why they're speaking to the Times.

Third, and this is of pressing concern to me, the Times did nothing to tell me, as a reader, the hell its' two sources were entitled to anonymity.

Clearly the Times' own standards on unidentified sources, after the publication the report about preserving readers' diminishing trust in the Times, were not met in this story.

Where is Slate's Jack Shafer when I need him to critize the Times?

-

Care to see two bookends of disaster staging the same basic photo-op to show their concern for America, four years apart?

Here's Veep Cheney doing his job from his helicopter on September 12, 2001.

And here is Dubya performing his duties as president on August 31, 2005.

-

September 8, 2005
American Urban Radio interview with First Lady Laura Bush

"[...] I mean, we'd really rather they didn't see people on their roofs screaming for help, or snipers or looters. I mean, these are all things that we don't want our children to see, because as you know, on television, they show them over and over and over and over, the same thing over and over [...]

"And then, of course, the bad images that we saw from young people looting stores or whatever, I mean, all of these are things that we want to address in Helping America's Youth. A lot of that was understandable, certainly, if you needed water or you were hungry. But on the other hand, to steal a television when you don't even have electricity, that seems not that sensible, to say the least [...]"

No one needed to see those images, but Mrs. Bush seems wholly unaware of how her husband's policies and his political pals are directly responsible for what led many of Katrina's victim to rooftops and engage in looting to survive. I'd like for her to also address the looting of the federal treasury for Dubya's follies in Iraq.

Still, I am surprised that she expressed any understanding about some of the survival tactics citizens of New Orleans found necessary to stay alive.

-

Rocky Mountain News
September 10, 2005

[...]"It's horrible," said Mary Ann Karns, an Oklahoma lawyer who once worked with Brown in the Edmond, Okla., city government. "He does not deserve this as a human being."

When Karns got Brown's e-mail addressed to "friends and family" last week, she offered to drive to Louisiana to "evacuate" him from the media storm [...]

Such a good friend, this Ms. Karns. Too bad she also didn't offer to evacuate the poor, black citizens of New Orleans who suffered greatly because of Brownie.

-

FEMA posted nine versions of the same release on September 10 about Bush signing declarations offering federal aid to nine states, including South Dakota, assisting evacuees. Last I heard, no Katrina victims have been sent to the Mt. Rushmore state.

Drownie Brownie was quoted in all nine releases.