Celebrity death and the failures of journalism

The coverage of the death of actor Heath Ledger offers an almost textbook example of the failings of modern journalism.

I’m not talking about the out-of-proportion coverage or the obsession with celebrity and celebrity failings that drive stories like this. I’m talking about something more ingrained in the way we do our jobs these days, a methodology that contributes to the sloppy work of most journalists and helps explain why public opinion polls have consistently shown Americans to have little respect for the profession.

Ledger, one of the stars of “Brokeback Mountain,” died Tuesday. Initial “reports” were that the death was drug related and that he may have been found at a friend’s apartment. Later “reports” placed him at his own New York City residence. “Reports” said he called his latest girlfriend, that he overdosed, that he was a troubled soul — some of which has proven to be accurate, though most turned out to be nothing more than speculation. The stories — on television, in newspapers such as The New York Post and the New York Daily News — offered vague attributions like “detectives close to the investigation,” “law enforcement officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity,” etc.
And that’s the crux of my criticism. Watching MSNBC this morning as a ran on the treadmill, I was struck by how much information was provided about Ledger’s death and how little of it was attributed. Reading the Post this morning was the same.
Given what I do for a living, I tend to be skeptical of the “sources say” construction — as I ask my reporters, “what sources?” Who are these people, why are they speaking anonymously and why are we letting them? Why should the reader believe they even exist?

Anonymous sources are sometimes necessary, such as when information that is important for the public good is disclosed by someone who might face retribution for revealing it. I think of whistle blowers whose jobs — or even lives — could be imperiled by their decisions to come forward and disclose safety hazards or public corruption. There are other instances in which quoting an anonymous source makes sense.

But a general prohibition against using anonymous sources is probably a good idea, because it forces news organizations to justify anonymity each time it comes up. And each case should be justified both internally and to the reader.

Anonymous sources have a long and mixed history, but I have the sense that they are being used to a greater degree these days and with less thought. The reason for this — or at least part of the reason — is the growing sense among news organizations that they always be first. It creates an imperative among reporters to sacrifice accuracy and responsibility, to do almost anything they need to do, quote anyone, offer anyone anonymity, in an effort to get the story before the competition, or , at the very least, not to be left behind in the race.

The fact is, journalists in general need to take a step back and start asking questions about what they do and why they do it and then incorporate those answers in to the way we do our jobs. It is our only hope if we are to regain the public trust that is necessary for us to play our role in the democratic process.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.
Unknown's avatar

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

Leave a comment