Word choice, certainty and unnamed sources

Reading today’s story in The New York Times on the anticipated — but still uncertain — prosecution of U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, I was struck by two paragraphs. Consider this one first, the story’s second:

Now, federal corruption prosecutors are close to once again bringing charges against a senator, Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat. The Justice Department’s public corruption unit, which was overhauled after the Stevens case, is running the investigation. Once again, the case involves a lawmaker and gifts from a wealthy friend.

Think about the phrasing — “are close to,” meaning it is going to happen, and probably soon.

Two paragraphs later, however, we get this:

Charges are expected against Mr. Menendez in the next few weeks, and comparisons to the Stevens case are sure to follow. But officials and others close to the investigation say Mr. Menendez’s case diverges in crucial ways from the one brought against Mr. Stevens, which was dismissed after prosecutors were found to have withheld evidence.

“Expected” — meaning they are likely, but not definite. After all, expectations do not always come to pass.

I know this seems a minor point, but phrasing matters. The Times seems conflicted — on the one hand underscoring the certainty of the situation, while walking it back some just a few paragraphs later.

I don’t write this to pick on the Times or to defend Menendez. My concern, as I wrote a few weeks ago, is that the Menendez story has been treated as though charges are a fait accompli, despite it being based on unnamed sources. Rumors have swirled around Menendez for years without anything happening. This time may be different, but it remains too early for the kind of certainty we are seeing in many of the recent Menendez stories.

Here is the lede from a story in The Wall Street Journal:

Federal investigators are preparing to file criminal charges against Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey as early as this week, after a legal battle over how much the Constitution shields lawmakers and their aides, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Here is a tweet from the Political Wire that also makes it seem as though it is a done deal:

Not everyone is pushing certainty, Reuters, in reporting the Journal story, added some important qualifiers — adding the word “possible” to its headline and casting the story this way:

Federal investigators could file criminal corruption charges as early as this week against U.S. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

The New York Business Journal took the same approach — and wrote a nearly identical lede aa while adding additional qualifiers.

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez could face federal corruption charges as soon as this week, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

It’s not yet clear what precise charges might arise from the investigation that began more than two years ago, the WSJ said, but they are expected to focus on a doctor friend and political donor, Salomon Melgen, whom Menendez has acknowledged paying $60,000 for flights to the Dominican Republic. Furthermore, the report said, the Federal Bureau of investigation appears interested in whether Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, improperly sought to influence a probe into Dr. Melgen’s billing and a separate issue involving the doctor and the Department of Homeland Security.

“Could,” “might,” “appears,” “not clear” — words that underscore the fluidity of the story because of its sourcing.

And that is my point. The authority on which all of these stories are based is the same — an unnamed person close to the investigation, a source whose motivation remains unknown to the reader. Does this mean that the source should be ignored or the story not written? Not necessarily. But we — and I mean both reporters and readers — should be skeptical about these kinds of stories. How close is the source to the investigation? Why leak the information and why do it now? Can the source be trusted? Why should the reader turst the source?

Ultimately, these stories — if they are going to run — need to be couched in qualifications.

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