Gagging On 'Deep Throat'

Watergate’s 30th anniversary prompted a new round of the increasingly tiresome game, Who was Deep Throat? On Salon.com, John Dean took about eight guesses and expected people to pay to read them. Making the chat show rounds, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein grinned and mewled like cheshire cats when asked the inevitable.

It’s too bad that no one posed another, more timely question about Deep Throat: How did this anonymous super-source influence post-Watergate journalism? Thanks to the cult of personality that Woodstein inadvertently created around Deep Throat -- and because he happened to be telling the truth -- today’s investigative reporters feel increasingly free to rely upon unnamed sources. And that can lead to some risky reportage.

Consider the case of Gary Condit. The California congressman seems like a jerk, and he may well turn out to be involved in the death of Chandra Levy. Still, he’s innocent until proven guilty. Right? Well, not really. Thanks in large part to anonymous sources, the press has already convicted Condit. An analysis by reporter Michael Doyle in The Modesto Bee found that much of the most damaging material about Condit -- portrayal of his grand jury testimony, that he’d had sex with Levy -- came from anonymous sources.

In 287 Condit-related stories published by The Washington Post, Doyle found, "144 relied at least partly on unnamed sources." The New York Post’s main Condit reporter depended on anonymous sources for two-thirds of his stories. In numerous instances, Doyle found, those sources contradicted each other. In other words, a significant percentage of what we think we know about Condit is wrong.

That’s one problem with anonymous sources: They can say what they want without having to take responsibility if their information isn’t accurate. Another problem is that for the subject of anonymous criticism, it’s almost impossible to respond; knowing the source of an attack is often crucial to rebutting it. That’s because the public-spirited anonymous whistleblower -- the descendant of Deep Throat -- is a mythical beast. Anonymous sources almost always have hidden agendas which matter more to them than the pursuit of some civic-minded "truth."

Those agendas loom larger in stories that are more important than Gary Condit, such as articles on national security and the war in Afghanistan. Yet the bigger the story, the more reporters turn to anonymous sources -— exactly the opposite of the way it should be.

In the pages of the New Yorker, for example, Seymour Hersh has been writing fascinating explorations of the U.S. intelligence community and the military in their fight against terrorism. The only problem is, Hersh uses so many anonymous sources, it’s impossible to separate truth from spin. In one 5,000-word article last October 8, Hersh apparently used original material from 41 people. (I counted.) One was retired senator Bob Kerry. Another was a retired intelligence agent writing a book. The remaining 39 sources were anonymous.

Why does that matter? Well, Hersh’s article painted a devastating picture of CIA director George Tenet and suggested that his ouster was imminent. Surely some of those sources were predicting Tenet’s exit in order to help make it so -- all under cover of anonymity. "They've told him he's on his way out," Hersh quotes one "official" as saying. Nine months later, Tenet still has his job.

Of course, it’s inevitable that some anonymous sources will find their way into print, especially in intelligence matters. People who work in secrecy don’t like to go on the record, and sometimes they shouldn’t. But there comes a time when reporters rely on so many anonymous sources that their work is, simply, impossible to trust.

The New York Times ran what appeared to be an important story about Al Qaeda on Sunday, June 16. The gist of the article, reported and written by David Johnston, Dan Van Natta Jr., and Judith Miller, was that the war in Afghanistan had backfired. By forcing the dispersal of Al Qaeda agents across the globe, it "might have complicated counterterrorism efforts." A new group of Al Qaeda operatives working with new terrorist allies "now poses the most serious terrorist threat to the United States." In other words, we lost by winning.

That’s a profoundly disturbing argument. Is it true? That’s impossible to say, because three excellent reporters from the most powerful newspaper in the world failed to get one single source to go on the record. The lede of the story is attributed to "senior government officials," and a variation of that phrase appears no fewer than 47 times in the 2,900 word story. The article is stocked with "senior officials," "government officials," "American officials," and frequently, just plain "officials." From time to time, there are "experts." Is there not one person in the entire U.S. government willing to let his or her name be used on a matter of vital national security? Apparently not.

Now, these "officials" might simply be interested in educating Times’ readers. Or they might have other motives: building public support for war against Iraq, pressuring Congress to boost the intelligence budget, making the CIA or FBI look good, or furthering some intra-government feud. Who knows? If the Times’ reporters do, they aren’t saying. There’s not even a suggestion as to why the Times might have gotten all this leaked information. The absence of any skepticism creates the implicit suggestion that the Times reporters are just so darn good, they got all this juicy material thanks entirely to their own hard work -- rather than because "government officials" had a story they wanted to get out.

To be fair, it’s possible that the Times' reporters are entirely right. In the world of anonymity, anything is possible. That’s the point.

Today's perception becomes tomorrow's "fact".
Speculation in today's news reporting becomes research data for future historians...
Today's reporters and politicians formed their underlying bias' a generation ago.
Someone, twenty five or so years from now, will dredge up every tin-foil capped theory now floating 'round about 9/11, Chandra Levy, Florida elections, etc.
and use each one to support a different conspiracy...

This comes as a surprise?

I don't think there ever was a deep throat. Just someone made up by the reporters to write whatever they wanted.

Years later, Woodward pulled a similar stunt with Bill Casey. He lied and said he was talked to Casey, when the truth was Casey was in a coma and his family was keeping a vigil at his bedside.

Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, in the book Silent Coup present a compelling argument that Deep Throat was Alexander Haig. They make a number of interesting observations, including the following which can be found on page 291 of my paper back edition. Colodny and Gettlin write that prior to the breaking of the Watergate story "Woodward held three jobs in his adult life - five years as a Navy officer, one year on a suburban weekly newspaper, and nine months at the Wahington Post assigned to the metropolitan desk. Given the trust displayed by Deep Throat in his dealings with Woodward, it is virtually inconceivable that the relationship could have developed anywhere but in the Navy. It was in the Navy that Wooward had held the trusted role of briefer and in that capacity had briefed, among others, Alexander Haig."

I read "Silent Coup" about ten years back. The Alexander Haig theory seems plausible enough. More interesting to me was the proposition that John Dean engineered the Watergate break-in to steal evidence that his then-fiancee-now-wife Maureen was a call-girly who serviced Democrat political bigwigs.

"It was in the Navy that Woodward had held the trusted role of briefer and in that capacity had briefed, among others, Alexander Haig.".......

So you read the book..........good! Remember anything in that book about Woodward collecting info from unguarded briefcases, etc? Remember the problems the Joint Chiefs were having? Woody was a very competent operative, and apparently, there were meaningful reasons for his actions. Everyone should read that very well compiled book!

Deep Throat? ...... Alexander Lovelace!

Gagging On 'Deep Throat' TOMPAINE.com | 6-19-02 | Richard Blow

by Richard BLOW?

BWAHAHAHA!!!

FMCDH

"John Dean engineered the Watergate break-in to steal evidence that his then-fiancee-now-wife Maureen was a call-girly who serviced Democrat political bigwigs."....

It's all most likely very true! (Nixon pulled off a few more important and serious break-ins than this one.) Maureen and her fine roomate especially were doing "favors" along with dozens more girls for some grateful folks in D.C. This operation would have made Heidi Fleish jealous. These girls were all very well raised, and educated, and just performed the "simple things"........no leather and handcuffs. It was all very fashionable. Dean sure had more on his hands than he had earlier known.

When you think about all this it is really somewhat comedic. But here's a question for you sleuths out there. Why do you think James McCord covered the doorjam at the Watergate TWICE with the tape that the policeman eventually found.........eh? Was McCord there to purposely screw up? Inquiring minds ...........

It's rather amusing to find Richard Blow lecturing other journalists about ethics. Blow was the bigshot at George magazine who fired employees for giving on-the-record POSITIVE quotes about JFK Jr. after he died. Then Blow went and wrote a book about JFK Jr.!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.