Politico’s Mike Allen Defends Use Of Anonymous Bush Torture Memo Spin
There’s a growing blogospheric campaign underway to pressure journalists to stop letting government officials spin or dissemble under cover of anonymity — and the latest to take a hit for the practice is Politico’s Mike Allen.
Allen’s article today on Obama’s release of the torture memos features three paragraphs of criticism of the decision from an anonymous “former top official” under Bush — prompting sharp criticism from Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald.
But Allen defended the decision in an email to me, conceding it was “not ideal” but better than including no reaction at all from the Bush camp.
The anonymous Bush official blasted Obama’s decision as “damaging,” claimed torture techniques “work” and asked whether Obama still thinks we’re at war with terrorists. Which prompted Sullivan to ask: “What journalistic standard is Allen following in allowing such a person to speak anonymously?”
More chatter about this is likely today, so I emailed Allen for an explanation. He replied:
Sometimes ya have to read beyond a blog snippet. When people read our actual article, they’ll see that the headline and top two-thirds are an exclusive on David Axelrod’s behind-the-scenes description of the President’s decision-making process, followed by a shorter Bush view from a very high-level official whose opinion was available only on background — not ideal, but better than making readers wonder what the official Bush view is.
Critics will respond that this official used anonymity to make the unsupported claim that torture worked and to sow doubts about Obama’s commitment to defending the country. I’d argue that it’s unclear why anyone should enjoy anonymity for such claims at such a white-hot political moment. If Bush officials won’t attach their names to these views on the day the torture memos were released, then why should their position be represented at all?
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg
.
What Mike Allen is doing is trying to legitimize false equivalence. There seems to be a belief in the journo realm, especially Politico, that you have to get both sides of the story no matter what the cost. Even if one side is totally and verifiably wrong it seems they still include it in the story. Of course it usually seems that this happens more with articles where the Democrat has the better argument and thats whats even more frustrating. But I would argue this, if David Axlerod agreed to put his name beside something then true equivalence would be whomever the Bush Administration trotted out should be made to put their name beside what they said or have it discarded. People are harmed by anonymous sources that spin a story just to try to make themselves look better. Of course this is the same Mike Allen who went on Hugh Hewitts show and referred to the “real America” echoing the McCain campaign’s bullsh*t. Its weaksauce and he knows it which is why he gave a weaksauce explanation on it. Every publication is supposed to have clear guidlines on when to extend anonymity to a source and either Politico doesn’t have one or the one they have is utter bullsh*t so they can garner more Drudge links.
Greg
.
Maybe you could email him back and ask what Politico’s official policy is on extending anonymity.
Exactly how is this use of anonymity justified? There are specific cases where I understand it’s use but cannot for the life of me see how this case is correct usage. Who TF cares what “former high level Bush admin officials” think, especially ones that hide behind anonymity? [Is that you Karl?, Aren't you guilty of these crimes?]
Mike Allen is a suck up – see his act on Hewitt’s show. The man would not know journalism if it stared him in the face. He fawns when he deals with Bushites and is a total Republican tool.
SG – The “false equivalence” thing is something that drove me crazy throughout the Bush years. The Bushies used what had started as legitimate journalistic practice to manipulate the media so that facts ceased to be facts. My guy says the sky is blue. Your guy says the sky is green. We’ll have them both discuss it so our readers/viewers hear both sides of the argument. That means we’re fair.
Of the many staff over at Politico, Allen has seemed the most consistently amenable to the role of conduit for Republican talking points whether writing or in interviews. When I read him now, I look for the continuance of this pattern.
There is no justification here for that speaker to be granted anonymity. He’s asked for it because his name and veracity has been discredited. And the suggestion that we wouldn’t know, without help from this anonymous fact-sharer, what the Bush administration position would be on this issue is about as obtuse as it gets.
Your last sentence is spot on, Greg. The truth is that Mike Allen IS a rightwing flack. He hangs out and parties with the rightwing Republicans around town and they treat him very well because they know that he is a reliable mouthpiece for whatever spin they want to push. But he really believes that stuff because he IS a rightwinger. That’s why he has all those sources, because he’s one of ‘em.
Mike Allen will write whatever meme the “conservative” statists want him to advance.
I have long maintained that Allen is a GOP operative. Look at his many appearances on talk shows hosted by the likes of Hewitt and Mike Gallagher. Then look at the remarks he makes when he goes on these shows. The guy’s a fraud.
Yup. Allen got the top Drudge link for the story. You’ll have to go find it yourself, no link for Drudge. At least it isn’t in big red letters with a siren.
The title: “FORMER TOP BUSH OFFICIAL SAYS RELEASE OF MEMOS DOES ‘GRAVE DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY … WE HAVE LAID IT ALL OUT FOR OUR ENEMIES’”
See how that works? That’s DC journalism for you.
There are two things that come together with this story. Because the media has helped with the spin and disseminated false information over many years, there’s a lot of disinformation in the public, much of it codified to unreasoning belief. This makes it difficult for a new administration to mete out justice with regard to torture in a way that might seem straightforward and obvious given the Conventions we’ve signed. In effect, there’s a holdover effect of propaganda that, in some ways, ties their hands. Part of their work in governing is to determine how to move forward while dealing with this distorted reality, and attempting, over time, to right it. And this even as the spin continues.
good job!!
Does Allen really think we didn’t know what the reaction of former Bush administration officials would be? If so, he’s a moron.
Also, this policy effectively encourages subjects to demand anonymity regardless of whether there’s any justification for it. I don’t really know why blog commentators have to point that as opposed to say, someone who actually works at that rag.
@Xanthippas
But they know. What you described IS the game with Politico. Remember Politico is funded by a rightwing extremist outfit Albritton Communications. Mike Allen and Vande/Harris definitely know what they are doing. And notice how EVERYONE links to this, Drudge and everyone in the liberal blogosphere. No one in DC cares if the liberal blogosphere is upset, they think it is funny. And they get a lot of love from Drudge, which means that Scarborough and all the cable daytime gigs pick it up and talk about it all day. That’s how they “win the day.” You think they are going to change that? No way. It is a successful model for them.
How can ANYONE argue that torture is justified cause it works? I thought that question was settled sometime during the Enlightenment when Europe finally shut down their torture chambers (except for the Inquisition which lasted until almost the 18th century in some places -)
I mean – it’s bad enough that it happened. I simply cannot believe that anyone would try to justify it.
Ummm… note to Mike allen, we aren’t wondering what the Bush admin’s response is… we know already. Dick Cheney’s response is the Bush Admin. response.
What is sad is that no matter what Mr Allen will hold to his postion and never see that maybe just maybe he got this one wrong!! That to me is the biggest hindrance to good journalism….the inability to admit when you are wrong and taking steps to improve!
That so few–and none among the current or former officialdom–are willing to come forward openly and make the case for “why torture works” (leaving aside its illegality and immorality) would seem to reveal the weakness of their case.
What we do know is that “intelligence” yielded up from torture has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars; given our own experience with effectively using misinformation to throw the Nazis off the scent before D-Day, why would we not assume that “the enemy” wouldn’t do the same thing?
Even were torture to be effective in some manner–which I don’t believe for a second–we should reject it; from the Founders on down, at our best, our national honor has come before our lives. That the Bush/Cheney apologists aver that torture is both legal (the purpose of the OLC memos, after all) and effective is yet another manifestation of the magical thinking that pervades the contemporary American Right, though its ugliest.
If the person doesn’t have the cajones to put their name by their words, the source shouldn’t be quoted–period! This should be standard practice. As a bridge to a new form of accoutable journalism why can’t journalists state: “We reached out to sources for different views on this subject, however, our sources refused to allow their names to be printed so we will not include their perspectives in this article.” Stop quoting the spineless who stand behind anonymity and they will have to fade into irrelevance because you take away their power. Ideally, the paradigm will change and a new generation who puts their name by their words will emerge for the sake of accountability, transparency, and integrity. Until then, journalists like Allen are discreting themselves and their profession and empowering the bottomfeeders to keep their place at the bullhorn.
That didn’t take long. Allen now has an article up on Politico responding. Funny watching the rats scurry when the flashlight is pointed at them.
You need the other side? How about “Bush officials wouldn’t comment on the memo’s revelations.” There, done.
Start to call anonymous sources what they are “Cowards” The proper response is that torture is cowardly act and this so-called former Whitehouse statement is another cowardly act. Why would anyone give any credence to the words and actions of cowards especially in matters of national security?
What do you wanna bet the anonymous source was Cheney?
A highly placed official, who wishes to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of his position, informs me that Mike Allen is a ********* and a water carrier for rightwing criminals.
You heard it here first.
I’ve come to the conclusion that some reporters make stuff up and attribute it to anonymous officials. Why not? Who will can prove them wrong? Who really questions them (other than the blogosphere)?
How about “Bush officials wouldn’t comment on the record on the memo’s revelations.”
Unreal, this is the type of ‘Journalism’ that got us in the Iraq War. I haven’t bothered with the Politico for a long time, and now I know why. Mike Allen is a coward. If he will print a article like this, he better show his sources.
“On background”? Anyone please correct me here, but isn’t “on background” almost universally taken to mean that you can report the gist of the information the person is giving you, and you can characterize that person in general terms (or even more specific terms, such as “A former top official in the administration of President George W. Bush”), but that you CANNOT use direct quotes? And that’s not to protect the source, that’s to protect your own journalistic credibility. Allen is way out of bounds here.
As I just wrote over at my blog, Allen’s response is simply a dodge:
Sorry, Mike, but you can’t get off by blaming readers for giving your post only a cursory glance. The placement of the quote in the context of the post is not the issue. The issue is granting anonymity to a Bush official in these circumstances.
He says it’s better to grant anonymity than not to have any take from the Bush team at all, but that’s a false choice.
Allen could have simply moved on and found someone else to give the Bush administration’s take. There are plenty of former Bush administration officials getting their two cents in today. The real issue for Allen most likely was: Will another Bush official give me a quote this juicy? And so he granted the anonymity on that basis, because he’s interested in driving traffic to his site. Pretty much par for the course for Allen, who comes from the horse-trading journalistic culture of Newsweek.
mr. allen probably thought he *couldn’t* run the story without comment from bushco, based on how important he and his publication feels it is to get the reaction from the opposing sides in any political story. That’s as charitable an explanation for his motives as I can come up with. I disagree with them as to the relative importance, but that’s another issue.
The problem is that his source used that sense of importance as leverage to be able to make his remarks anonymously – which allows him to make **** up without scrutiny, and completely outweighs whatever benefit there was to having both sides represented. mr. allen was used, his article subverted into an opinion piece. The only remaining question was whether he realizes it or not. I have thoughts on that, one certainly thinks he could have found someone else to comment on the record, but I’ve spent too much work time already
Sorry, make that Time magazine, regarding my reference to Allen’s former employer. Time and Newsweek both operate by the same sort of access-brokering journalistic standards though.
Let’s face it. Virtually all that is written in newspapers, blogs, books and elsewhere; all that is spoken in public, on the airwaves, on cable and satellite feeds …in fact all human communications is a few truths, lots of fiction and a whole bunch of bullshit anted-up by someone trying to convince you of something …including this comment. We have this innate flaw in our character that drives us to believe (as facts) that which someone “in high position” tells us …whether or not the name is attached.
Facts …you would think that facts would always be the truth, the complete truth with no room to equivocate, shade or otherwise manipulate. Facts are facts …not facts according to you or facts according to me …just facts, a piece or pieces of information that cannot be viewed in another light …in another way.
Facts are absolutes. Lies, half truths, etc., are not facts no matter the source, anonymously spoken or not. So why worry about Mike Allen’s source. His or her name is irrelevant. Undoubtedly, the next words out of the “source’s” mouth will be shaded another way to meet the needs of the source’s then audience.
Science and math are the only methodologies that provide a medium for communicating “facts” between people …the only purveyors of absolute, repeatable facts. Everything else has some degree of opinion attached.
Best regards,
BB
I don’t think I caught anyone in these comments picking up on this aspect of Mike Allen’s response.
“Not ideal, but better than making readers wonder what the official Bush view is.”
Pardon me, how can an anonymous critic be credited with the “official Bush view”? To be “official” doesn’t someone with the proper administration credentials need to go on record with their name included?!
If Mike Allen can call himself a journalist, I can call myself a star basketball player. And I’m 5 feet 4.
Craig-bob schwartz nails it. Surely the only ‘official Bush view’ can come from Bush himself or an authorised spokesperson. Or is Allen suggesting that there is some sort of Bush administration-in-exile, holding pretend cabinet meetings to endorse ‘official positions’?
The comments in question are personal opinions lacking any official standing and absent the identity of their author, they lack any significance whatsoever.
We had this same phenomenon in Australia for a while when a conservative government got kicked out after 11 years. Not only the conservative politicians but also the media continued to behave as if the old mob was still the legitimate administration and nothing could validly be said or done unless they endorsed it. It’s only now, 18 months after the change of government, that the media has started to comprehend that all its old anonymous sources are has-beens and nobody wants to read their opinions about anything any more.
Ken Lovell – Really interesting observation. Do you think the press in Australia was in a rut with their old sources? Or did it really take them 18 months (!) to absorb the fact that the guard had changed? Curious phenomenon if it’s the second. But it makes sense on some psychological level–change in authority figures, disruption of comfort zones, etc.
AllButCertain it’s a complex phenomenon that I can’t do justice to in a comment and don’t pretend to understand completely anyway. But 11 years was a long time and many of the current lead journalists made their careers by cultivating networks amongst the conservatives which also gave them a distinctive style. Journalism here has also degenerated mainly to assembling both on and off-the-record statements about something, asking the other party to give a response, and then reporting the exchanges with commentary as if they are a football game. Opinion polls are used almost weekly to keep score of who’s winning the game.
Anyway when the government changed, these journos seemed incapable of coping. After having the same network of routine go-to people for 11 years I think they had no alternative way to fuinction. Incapable of independent analysis, the only way they could get a story was to quote others and they had internalised the belief that the conservatives were the legitimate authority figures. Consequently for months after the election, any government initiative was analysed and interpreted according to the comments of conservatives.
The transition has been gradual. There are still a few Murdoch News Ltd hacks who are little more than shills for the conservatives (and like Allen get very whiny about bloggers) but a new generation of reporters is slowly establishing a relationship of mutual dependency with the current government. If Labor stays in power for 11 years I’m sure the same thing will happen in reverse when they finally get kicked out.
Ken, the Murdoch name has some resonance here, doesn’t it? And maybe lazy, starstruck human nature. As you say, it must be a complex thing, but the parallel is striking.
Mike Allen is a hack. That is all.