JOURNALISTS AND SOURCE GREASERS (REVISITED).

JOURNALISTS AND SOURCE GREASERS (REVISITED). Almost a year ago, I posted here about some of the problems that arise when journalists rely on anonymous sources. Not only does the reader not know what the source’s agenda is; he can never tell when the journalist is slanting an unrelated story to make one of his sources look good (Mickey Kaus had referred to a related practice is “source greasing.”)

In the New York Review of Books for October 25, there is a review by Russell Baker of Robert Novak’s new autobiograpy, PRINCE OF DARKNESS:50 YEARS OF REPORTING IN WASHINGTON, which describes some problems with sources. It is possible to be an innocent source, but “Novak’s only entrant in the innocent category is Robert Matsui, a California Democratic Congressman.” (Remember this is over 50 years of reporting.) Novak acknowledges that some one who chose not to be a source, could become a target for Novak. The example he gives is Robert Haldeman: “‘Bob Haldeman was treated more harshly because he refused any connection with me. He made himself more of a target than he had to be by refusing to be a source.'” And a source could be protected: “Alexander Haig was protected frankly as a longtime source of [Novak’s longtime partner, Rowland Evans].” All this makes it hard for those outside the Beltway to evaluate what we read, although Baker cites two sources, Congressman Melvin Laird and Robert Strauss, a longtime Democratic party heavyweight, where what Kaus would call “source greasing” was so obvious over the years that my brother Elmer noticed it.