Oxblog’s David Adesnik points out that Iraq policy critic Scott Ritter has a new outlet for his writings: Al Jazeera, which many consider the p.r. voice for Al Qaeda.
In his latest column, Mr. Ritter explains that Abu Musab al Zarqawi is a "phantom menace" invented by Ba’athist intelligence officers in order to provoke the United States into launching assaults that will cause civilian casualties and thereby turn the Iraqi people against the US-backed Allawi government.
Ritter reminds me of Oliver North — a self-important fool who will believe anything his unnamed "contacts" tell him. On the other hand, Ritter must be brimming with confidence as a result of the fact he was one of a handful of those who insisted long before the invaison that Saddam had no WMD, chem-bio or otherwise. The only problem is, Ritter may have been paid to say it.
Indeed: just because someone has "a contact" or "contacts" doesn’t mean it is good information. This is what was so stupifyingly dumb about the CBS Memogate scandal. Any beginning journalist knows that "a journalist is only as good as his sources" and finding whether information you get from a source is GOOD INFORMATION is half the battle.
When I was a journalist overseas and on newspapers I always had a huge Rolodex. I used to use a variety of sources, and cross check them. I only used the ones that I knew wouldn’t burn me, my paper and the readers. And — as on this blog — I loved to get a wide variety of opinions. Sometimes a source would be mad because I quoted someone who opposed him, but that was the way it went. As long as I knew I got RELIABLE FACTUAL information, the source was solid –but there had to be a track record before I would trust them (and if they presented facts the facts had to be confirmed).
The bottom line is that anyone can easily quote anyone or write anything as a "fact." But the key is to quote people who have proven records of accuracy…accuracy that can be confirmed.
Another danger is when a source darts his eyes around and tells you he’s telling you something no one else knows ("I’ve got a story that’ll bust this town wide open!"). Great drama? Yes? PROOF he knows it? No.
Adesnik and TMV agree on Ritter and North; both are certain THEY have the REAL story. A lot of it stems from a sense that they think they’re somehow smatter than the rest of us.
Which is an inaccuracy.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.