On Friday, the LA Times relied entirely on unnamed sources to accuse Israel of ‘maintaining a large and active intelligence-gathering operation in the United States that has long attempted to recruit U.S. officials as spies and to procure classified documents.’
While ‘Franklingate’ — which itself relied entirely on unnamed sources — was fizzling away, the Times presents a whole host of anonymous voices who claim Israel uses sneaky methods such as ‘slip[ping] into homes and hotel rooms of visiting delegations to go through briefcases and to copy computer files.’ The Times also has a ‘former senior intelligence official’ who claims Israel ‘tried to recruit him as a spy’:
“I had an Israeli intelligence officer pitch me in Washington at the time of the first Gulf War,” he said. “I said, ‘No, go away,’ and reported it to counterintelligence.”
We’re reminded of the statement of the New York Times’ Daniel Okrent in May:
There is nothing more toxic to responsible journalism than an anonymous source. There is often nothing more necessary, too; crucial stories might never see print if a name had to be attached to every piece of information. But a newspaper has an obligation to convince readers why it believes the sources it does not identify are telling the truth. That automatic editor defense, “We’re not confirming what he says, we’re just reporting it,” may apply to the statements of people speaking on the record. For anonymous sources, it’s worse than no defense. It’s a license granted to liars.
From the LA Times article:
The U.S. officials all insisted on anonymity because classified material was involved and because of the political sensitivity of Israeli relations with Washington. Congress has shown little appetite for vigorous investigations of alleged Israeli spying.
So why would these figures talk to the LA Times at all, if the matter involves classified material? Could it be that they have a personal ‘appetite’ of their own on the matter? That’s certainly a possiblity, but it’s not even raised by the Times. Does this not contradict Okrent’s requirement to convince readers why we should believe the unnamed sources?
UPDATE: The Toronto Star published today an ‘unsigned commentary’ from The Economist that claims ‘growing speculation that the FBI investigation of Franklin is the tip of an iceberg.’ Also, no named sources here.
