Note: The views and opinions expressed in blog/editorial posts are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of Misbar.
Presenting quotations accurately has long been an ethical issue for media outlets. Countless examples of the media misquoting a source and thus spreading misinformation abound.
These misquotes range from the comical to the fabulist to the dire. In 2002, Moshe Ya’alon, then-Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, allegedly told a Haaretz reporter that “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.” This incendiary quote was repeated across major international newspapers and met with widespread outrage.
However, Ya’alon never said the quote. In 2003, Henry Siegman wrote in an article for The New York Review of Books that Ya’alon had “formerly talked of how war would ‘sear deep’ into Palestinian consciousness that they are a defeated people.” The only part of the quote actually in quotation marks was “sear deep,” and yet the context provided by Siegman was granted a life of its own as a full quote ostensibly made by Ya’alon.
Anonymous Sources
Similarly, on January 9, 2021, the Washington Post released a scandalous report: then-President Donald Trump had tried to coerce Georgia elections investigator Frances Watson to find him votes, the article alleges. In particular, it claims that Trump told Watson that she would become a “national hero” if she could “find the fraud.”
In a later correction to the story, the Washington Post writes: “Trump did not tell the investigator to ‘find the fraud’ or say she would be ‘a national hero’ if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find ‘dishonesty’ there. He also told her that she had ‘the most important job in the country right now.’”
To Watson, Trump actually said: “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised.” The Wall Street Journal released the full recording of that call and Trump’s call to Brad Raffensperger, in which he urged the Georgia Secretary of State to “find 11,780 votes.”
The “find the fraud” and “national hero” misquotes went viral after the Washington Post article came out, with many news sources repeating the misquotes as factual.
But how do these mistakes even happen? Many misquotes take place when the news relies on anonymous sources for material, such as in the Washington Post article. Some believe that anonymous sources are rhetorical strawmen only used to further entrench readers in the media outlet’s ideological views. According to the Pew Research Center, anonymous sources are viewed differently across the political divide: 29% of Republicans believe that anonymous sources should never be used, while only 8% of Democrats hold the same belief.
The anonymous source’s distance from the reader often paradoxically inscribes itself as authoritative discourse. According to Mikhail Bakhtin, authoritative discourse gains its power from existing removed from the individual; it comes from no-place, no-time, and no-one. Though it is assumed that the anonymous source met with the reporter writing a story, the distance created through anonymity can grant their words a certain static power.
The impossibility of verifying anonymous sources means that journalists such as Janet Cooke, who wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning fabricated story about a child heroin addict, can rely on the conceit of anonymity-granted ethos to engender a credible veneer. And yet, without anonymous sources, “Deep Throat” would never have exposed Watergate.
The Society of Professional Journalists contends that “Anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to unlocking a big story, throwing back the curtain on corruption, fulfilling the journalistic missions of watchdog on the government and informant to citizens. But sometimes, anonymous sources are the road to the ethical swamp.”
Anonymous sources are often a vital component to big stories, since speaking out against powerful people and organizations can be extremely dangerous. For example, anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny has publicly spoken out against Russian President Vladimir Putin. In response, he was poisoned in a near-fatal attack and is now imprisoned in a penal colony. Igor Danchenko, an expert who collected information on Trump and Russia, agreed to tell the FBI what he knew as long as he could remain anonymous. After being outed, Dachenko now fears retribution by Russian officials. Being a non-anonymous source can be hazardous; and since most of us have a strong instinct for self-preservation, without anonymous sources, there is often no story.
Misrepresentation: Direct/Indirect and Partial Quotes
As Poynter has illustrated, the originally anonymous source for the Washington Post article was later identified as Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs. The misquotes came from Watson’s discussion of the phone call with Fuchs, who then shared the alleged details of the call with the Washington Post. This goes to the heart of the error: a direct quote must always be first-hand, as it implies that it is an exact transcription. Alternatively, an indirect quote is meant to give a faithful meaning of what a person said, and can be used for second-hand accounts.
Another element of misquoting lies within the process of quote selection. Providing a full quote can be overwhelming and include much unnecessary information, but selecting the “right” part of the quote may mean the lack of much-needed context. Partial quotes can thus lead to the misleading portrayal of information.
For example, President Joe Biden held a CNN town hall on February 16, 2021. Many news outlets reported that Biden said he’s “not going to speak out” against Chairman Xi’s human rights abuses. However, what Biden actually said is: “And so the idea I’m not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uyghurs in western mountains of China and Taiwan, trying to end the One China policy by making it forceful — I said — and by the — he said he — he gets it.” Misbar debunked other news outlet reporting to show that with context, it is clear that Biden actually said that he speaks out against human rights abuses.
However, it’s not always as cut-and-dry as articulating the full context of a quote. For example, should an article about Biden’s interview include discourse markers – otherwise known as filler words? Would a partial quote that removes those still be an accurate portrayal of the interview?
The truth is that there are no right answers. Anonymous sources and partial quotes are a necessary part of journalism that will keep being incorporated as the media continues to evolve. However, there are several actions that can allow for more accuracy in reporting and receiving the news.
For Accuracy’s Sake
The use of an ombudsman, who operates independently of a news outlet’s management to investigate issues of fairness and balance, has been proven to help accuracy in reporting. Still, many news outlets have discontinued the role of the public editor/ombudsman, believing that it represents a bygone era in journalism; the Washington Post discontinued their ombudsman role in 2013.
But as columnist David Ignatius argues, the ombudsman may be necessary to ensure fair and accurate reporting: “Ombudsmen can be a pain in the neck. They second-guess reporters and editors. They advocate ideas of fairness that some people think are outmoded. They undermine coverage… But they're needed as never before. Critics see media bigshots as arrogant, unaccountable elitists pursuing their own agendas. A good ombudsman changes that balance, in favor of readers and viewers — and fairness.”
Some news outlets currently crowdsource this role to their readers. Yet with the use of anonymous sources, reader review of credibility is nearly impossible.
However, there are some tools that news consumers can employ when considering anonymous source use in the media. According to Perry Bacon Jr., when evaluating an anonymous source, readers should consider:
- Are there unverifiable predictions? A source who says something might take place is likely unreliable.
- Are there multiple sources? Quantity may mean credibility.
- Are there specifics? The more specific the anonymous source (job title, location, etc), the better.
- Is the media outlet legitimate? “Alternative” news sites will be less likely to employ ethical journalistic practices.
The use of professional fact-checking organizations – such as Misbar – can also help when ascertaining the legitimacy of quoted material. Professional fact-checkers are trained to investigate actual source material, and not simply articles about the material. When the Washington Post reported on Trump’s alleged statements in the phone call, other news organizations repeated the claims by using the Washington Post as a source. This creates an echo chamber in which media realms become more polarized.
To help fight this, readers should try to diversify their own news sources and apply critical thinking skills to the news. Reporters should seek to always employ ethical standards when using quoted material; if the Washington Post article had not written the Trump misquotes in actual quotation marks, this would not be the hot-button journalism scandal it has become. Finally, fact-checkers like the team at Misbar will keep rigorously assessing news stories to enhance media accuracy and honesty, and to combat the spread of misinformation.
