Defending Andrew Sullivan - Yes, Really

I think Sullivan has become as hateful as possible towards Religion and towards the GOP. And Anatomy of a Smear by Dean Barnett may be a fine read, but in this below it gets it wrong:

One more thing of journalistic interest occurs: The “news” about the motion to seal the divorce papers appeared in the virtual pages of the Atlantic first, not the National Enquirer or the Daily Kos as one might expect. Obviously, Atlantic field reporters haven’t trekked up to Alaska to monitor every random court filing. Therefore, someone had to tip off the Atlantic’s chief rumor spreader about the motion to seal the divorce papers. It would be interesting to know at whose bidding the Atlantic staffer in question is spreading unfounded smears.

I’m sure in the interests of full disclosure, the magazine and its chief rumor spreader will rush this information to the public. Right after they apologize for yesterday’s smear du jour turning up empty.

Neither journalists nor bloggers should feel compelled to give up their sources. No laws were broken. The fact is Sullivan linked to a document, that document was real. Who made him aware of its existence is none of our business. If a publication wants to preach about what good journalism is, they should assign someone to go find out who tipped Sullivan and not create moralistic standards of disclosure that don't and shouldn't exist.

Sullivan might be faulted for how he framed the post and for why he didn't contact the partner to ask why he filed the motion ... but that's about it. It was valid news.

True, Sullivan was too coy by half in his post, no doubt to try and protect whatever shred of a reputation he has left.

Comments

[Darth Malice]

Andrew Sullivan is a leftie fruit...why he ever calls himself conservative is beyond me.No reason to defend this fairy(note:not attacking his sexual prefrence,although if he just looks at arah Palin he would see what he is missing:))

[Dan Riehl]

Not really defending Sullivan AM - I'm defending an important principle, one most bloggers value. When I blogged on Crime I often kept sources confidential and had to if I wanted to develop any back then.

[seekeronos]

"--- Not really defending Sullivan AM - I'm defending an important principle, one most bloggers value. ---"

Sounds reasonable enough. :)

[Terry]

Not sure that I fully agree. Clearly, he has no obligation to provide the explicit name of his source(s). On the other hand, he has been repeatedly posting material that has been released in a cooridnated manner by those tied directly to the Obama campaign.

[Dan Riehl]

"he has been repeatedly posting material that has been released in a cooridnated manner by those tied directly to the Obama campaign"

And Right side blogs never post stuff trolled by McCain people, or supporters, right?

It's important that we don't let our individual politics get in the way of what constitutes the principles and ethics guiding journalism and blogs, to the extent they do.

[Darth Malice]

Dan,my problem with Andrew is he portrays himself conservative when he is quite liberal.Same thing with Peggy Noonan.

[Dan Riehl]

Oh, I have a lor of problems with Sullivan. As for Noonan, she went from always longing to go back to the Reagan years to writing mostly maudlin weeps on the nature of politics today, yadda yadda. She's a talented writer, but her generation has had its day. Frankly, she's not very relevant anymore. But always was an extremely talented wordswmith.

Back to Sullivan and this issue - I just don't want to let my contempt for him cloud my judgment on what servesmedia and bloggers rather well - the ability to not reveal sources and no expectation that we must every time out.

[Person of Choler]

I still wonder why anyone pays attention to America's National Bvtt Plvg.

[Robtr]

I could care less about Sullivans sources, I assume they are Daily Kos where he does the rest of his research. You contention however that the divorce status of a former business associate of Sarah Palins is valid news is rediculous. It would be valid news if there was one shred of evidence that an affair occured. Since there isn't it is just rumor mongering.

[rkb]

I'm going to disagree with you Dan. There's a point where 'more' becomes 'different in kind' and we've reached it. 'More of the same journalistic protection of sources' is, in the context of this election, a distortion of information flow that seriously threatens the functioning of our election process.

I'm really really tired of people defending principles in a vacuum. The reality is that right here, right now, we are seeing Sullivan use every means he has to destroy the people around Sarah Palin, including sic'ing the press on a family friend and his young son.

Sorry, I don't buy your argument. It no longer washes in the face of the deliberate politics of personal destruction being waged in a semi-coordinated fashion by the press and Palin's political enemies.

[Dr. Dean]

Dan, your point is well taken. Sullivan should not be compelled to list the source of the pathetic and obvious disinformation that he and the Atlantic are gushingly spreading that is so clearly aimed at hurting McCain/Palin and helping Obama/Biden. They don't need to. Americans already know.

[Kensington]

Dan, you make a defensible point -- a point almost too good for the loathesome and increasingly incoherent Sullivan. I only hope it will possible to drink the sweet, sweet tears of his shattered disappointment come election day.

[Mister Snitch!]

Who are you, and what have you done with Dan Riehl?

Kidding, you said/did the right thing, and moreso because you reached out to someone like Sullivan. But now go wash your hands.

[Vail Beach]

I think you're wrong here. I'm sick of the oppo-research game. Reporters, regardless of their sympathies, should "out" any campaign rat who hands them something scurrilous about their opponent. Using reporters to spread opposition research perverts the noble tradition of protecting sources who provide valuable information to the public at personal risk, and turns it into a con game, in which information that is biased is presented with the authority of a supposedly neutral third party. Just once, if a reporter said "Joe Blow of the Obama campaign provided this information in hopes of it reaching a wide audiences without the campaign's fingerprints on it," both sides would be forced to stop. Because they're all cowards.

[Steve White]

Dan's point is a good one and I agree: excepting explicit, immediate national security interest, a reporter should be able to keep his/her sources confidential.

There is a larger point, one that I think we'll all agree on: a reporter is known by what he or she writes. Bloggers too, and the more they write, the better we know them.

We know Mr. Sullivan pretty well, don't we.

His work over the past two years has been increasingly shameful, and that he would use 'planted' information from the Obama campaign, all the while pretending to be a voice of independence and reason, doesn't surprise me much.

Mr. Sullivan may well bring plenty of eyeballs to The Atlantic. Those eyeballs may well be rolling every time they read something he writes. What suffers is his reputation. That's his choice. I wouldn't want it.

[rix]

So there is a smear on a Republican candidate? I'm sure the NYT will get right on this. Right after they publish that retraction for smearing John McCain with "the possibility of the improper appearance that that it might habe been possible that he had an affair in 1979 as reported by an anonymous disgruntled ex-employee."

[Ted]

Mr. Sullivan demanded release of Gov Palin's medical records, because somehow the media (including him) had questioned the parentage of the baby.

Now people are asking for him to release background info on his sources, because somehow people have started questioning the accuracy of his "reporting".

It's hard to have much sympathy for the media in general, and Mr. Sullivan in particular.

[Jack Okie]

Over the past several years we have seen the BS grow exponentially where "anonymous sources" are concerned. The NYT hit piece on McCain re the female lobbyist is an example of how bad it has become. If someone isn't man or women enough to stand by their information, I'm not interested in hearing it. Reporters are not some priesthood, and the latest frenzy about Sarah Palin should settle any questions about their ethics.

Want me to pay attention to your piece, Andy? Tell me from whom and where the information comes. Otherwise you're just more noise. It's time we stopped playing this anonymous sources game, and the McCain campaign is a great place to start. If the media somehow regain their reputation, then I might consider accepting an anonymous source. Otherwise they're just making stuff up. And Lucy Ramirez agrees with me!

[Jim Addison]

What "reputation" could Sullivan possibly have left? He was, in truth, never much of a serious person. His old gay-libertarian-conservative stands attracted attention from some on the right back in the day (most notably the Short Pants Brigade at NRO), but even then he was more of a novelty than anything else.

For the last 5+ years, he has had nothing of interest to say. He's become a completely silly goose, viewing everything through his narrow perspective of "how does this affect gay marriage?"

Perhaps there was some point in linking to evidence of his complete meltdown back in 2004 or so. Why respectable bloggers are still doing so today is a real mystery.

[brian]

And Right side blogs never post stuff trolled by McCain people, or supporters, right?

It's important that we don't let our individual politics get in the way of what constitutes the principles and ethics guiding journalism and blogs, to the extent they do.

Dan, I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. To my knowledge, nobody from the McCain campaign, nor any right-wing blogs have pushed verifiable falsehoods into the mainstream press (of which The Atlantic certainly is a member).

Sullivan is still on the whole "is Trig really Sarah's baby" kick. I'm sorry, but when you're up against someone who is engaging in libel and slander, the right to anonymity of sources goes out the window.

[MIke Kennedy]

"Who made him aware of its existence is none of our business."

Whoa ! None of our business ? Maybe Andrew was recalling how Obama got elected to the Senate. Remember Jack Ryan and his divorce records ? The sleazemeter will have to be replaced. It ruptured.

[Simo]

What a bunch of babies some of you people are. Any pimping of info the Obama campaign may have done here (who knows?) is kids play compared to the coordinated pimping the McCain camp has done through the use of talk radio, the Drudge report, Fox news, and blogs. Not only does the campaign admit to doing this kind of stuff, they've been applauded for the political genius of having done it!

So please... cry me a river.

[Mike G in Corvallis]

Dan, in general your point is correct -- reporters should not reveal their sources.

But there's an important exception: when a reporter has been burned by false information, any guarantee or ethical responsibility to keep the source of the falsehood private vanishes like the snows of yesteryear. Indeed, many believe that when false information is deliberately presented as fact, reporters have an obligation to name the liar, to prevent further pollution of public discourse.

Andrew Sullivan has repeatedly passed on bogus "information." Has he identified those sources? Is this latest true, but profoundly misleading, revelation from the same source? That's something that Mr. Sullivan won't tell us.

[John]

Sullivan is inoculating Palin against any smear. The more often a story/rumor is proven untrue--the more often a factual story can be dismissed as fabricated. Sullivan is shooting himself in the foot and his finger is still pulling the trigger!

[A.W.]

I would say a pox on everyone for paying any attention to Sullivan at all. His descent into idiocy is one of the saddest stories around, for those who like intelligent commentary.

[Dan Collins]

Yeah, Dan, but . . .

Andrew! Mr. Sullivan! Is it true that your hysterical pregnancy is ectopic? America has a right to know!!!

[Kensington]

"Sullivan is inoculating Palin against any smear. The more often a story/rumor is proven untrue--the more often a factual story can be dismissed as fabricated. Sullivan is shooting himself in the foot and his finger is still pulling the trigger!"

Hey, maybe Excitable Andy is a conservative after all, just on deep cover as a lunatic, antisemitic misogynist conspiracy monger!

[Elrod]

The man is a crazed gomersexual. Nuff sed.

[tim maguire]

While I agree with the complaints from most people here, particularly that this is not news, and I'm really sick of the "gotcha" BS so many play these days where it's business as usual to exaggerate out of recognition, twist out of context, or just flat out make up whatever needs to be made up to get to the desired result; nevertheless, absent a crime, there is no need for a journalist to reveal a source.

The problem is Sullivan's use of this document, not how it came to his attention.

[Quilly Mammoth]

I understand your point, and without Andi's track record I'd support it. However, given the pattern of a new smear everyday at some point the question has to be answered...who's sockpuppet has Andi become?

Of course, a lot of what Andi has done lately has to be forgiven due to his battle with Aids Dementia Complex. I have it on good authority, from a source I will not name, that Andi's battle with HIV encephalopathy is not going well.

[Kensington]

Quilly Mammoth, I've heard that, too, and his troubling behavior is consistent with it. If Andrew would release his medical records on the matter, we would know for sure, and then we could move on.

[Jeff Weimer]

Dan, I think he was pointing the rhetorical stick ad Sullivan himself, who flogged the idea that the baby Trig wasn't hers...and then sat back and said, refute it! If it's not true, prove it!

So now he's throwing out an unsubstantiated rumor TO Sullivan and telling him, Prove it's not true! Petty, sure, and it does cross the source confidentiality rule. Sure is tasty, though, and could be explosive if linked back to the Obama campaign.

[Darren]

Wow, so many people supporting the idea not to identify sources. OK, I guess I could agree with that, UP UNTIL a judge orders you to. In other words, I don't agree with shield laws AT ALL.

Since no judge ordered Sullivan to reveal his sources here, there's no reason to expect that Sullivan should or will. I could not agree more with Mike G's point above:

"But there's an important exception: when a reporter has been burned by false information, any guarantee or ethical responsibility to keep the source of the falsehood private vanishes like the snows of yesteryear. Indeed, many believe that when false information is deliberately presented as fact, reporters have an obligation to name the liar, to prevent further pollution of public discourse."

[Les Nessman]

"Who made him aware of its existence is none of our business."

None of our business? Oh, the irony.

This whole story, and the last several stories about Palin, and many stories in general lately, are none of our business. The old rules of privacy don't apply anymore.
Well, if the rules don't apply to the hunted anymore then they shouldn't apply to the hunter anymore.

Somewhere, we and/or the Media haven't crossed a line; we've crossed into a whole new dimension.

[ThomasD]

Sorry, Sullivan got caught out pimping a hit piece heavy on innuendo and sorely lacking of meaningful fact. He was either woefully ingnorant of the details or wilfully misleading to his readership. Either way, that is a dereliction. It is fair to question his source, if only to gain greater knowledge of why he was willing to trust his source and pass on such thin gruel.

Doesn't mean he has to answer, but it is a fair question.

[roger rainey]

Dan, you should also discuss the correlative news/blog principle - that a source who passes along bogus information is not entitled to anonymity. Andy should be righteously outraged that his blog was used by the source to promote information of no journalistic value and only intended for political purposes. Since he is not, he is apparently more of an operative than a journo/blogger and, as such, should not be entitled to the presumptions you seem willing to afford him.

[tom swift]

"many believe that when false information is deliberately presented as fact, reporters have an obligation to name the liar"

I don't know if many believe this. But I wish more did. It would decrease the noise level in American politics tremendously, and maybe even strike a blow for decency and professionalism.

Of course to work, the reporter has to be able to distinguish fact from fiction, and that may prove a real hurdle.

[ian]

Sullivan claimed (in an email to me) that he only wanted the truth. This has become the journalistic equivalent of 'I was only following orders' - he wants as much 'truth' as possible about McCain and Palin while uncritically cheerleading for the Obama campaign. His answer to any criticism of Obama always comes around to "... but Bush/Cheney/neocons...(fill in alleged dastardly deed).." .
What we are seeing from him is merely phase 1 in the infatuation - disillusionment cycle.

[Cecil Turner]

I buy about half of this. There is an obvious societal benefit in getting the full story, and in some cases (especially whistleblowers), anonymity is a practical requirement. BUt I fail to see the moral virtue in anonymous character assassination, or protecting those who do it. The fascination with finding fault with Palin's last pregnancy strikes me as the worst sort of political slime, as does the hunt for a possible decades-past affair, even if it were true. Andrew shouldn't have touched this crap, and providing a cutout for the Obots (as I suspect) marks him and them as lowlifes. But I agree the onus is on others to discover the link, not him to reveal it.

[Holdfast]

Dan - your point makes sense in the abstract, but given Obama's history of beating his electoral opponents (both the primary and the generalfor his Senate seat) through leaked divorce papers, I think a higher standard is required in this case.

[Antimedia]

Dan you are completely wrong that this was valid news. Valid news would be having read the document, confirmed that it had relevant information and then, and only then, revealing it publicly, including the details that made it relevant. Rumors, lies and innuendo are not news. They are blog-fodder.

[Matt]

Dan is right. His position is based on principle, and I happen to agree with him. And that principle should not change no matter how objectionable one might find the person standing on it.

[anon]

Isn't it a moot point? Didn't Sullivan make a fool of himself yet again because the motion to seal the divorce papers was not granted and lo and behold there is nothing at all in them about an affair. The poor guy wanted them sealed because all of his personal info, address, phone number, etc. were on there and sleaze bag reporters were harrassing him.

Sullivan lost whatever remaining credibility he ever possibly allegedly possessed when he repeate the baseless rumor about Palin's son and followed it up with the earth shattering info. that Heart did not want the republicans using their song. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

[Argosy]

When did Dan Riehl become part of the nutroots? I've about had it with these two-faced "bloggers" who try to have it both ways. Be a man or join the nuts. Make up your mind.

[seekeronos]

"--- When did Dan Riehl become part of the nutroots? I've about had it with these two-faced "bloggers" who try to have it both ways. Be a man or join the nuts. Make up your mind. ---"

As I see it, Dan is trying to be objective and relatively neutral, despite whatever personal dislike he might have for Sullivan and his politics (however warped they are).

Dan is standing on journalistic principle, and standing upon principle is a thing men do. Even when that principle tells them to stand up in a manner that might result in the defense of an enemy's rights.

[David Johnson]

Dan,
I am sorry but what Sullivan did was not about News. It was Smear. He did no Legwork on this. None. He is the same guy who from the word go, posted every unproven and non fact-checked story.

He reall is a Sad sack of a man-child.

[Dan D]

Hey Dan... when you spread lies and innuendos you deserve the blow back. Andrew is no "Libertarian" or "conservative". He is an agent for the gay and liberal community that hates good folks that find that lifestyle repulsive.

[Dan D]

Hey Dan... when you spread lies and innuendos you deserve the blow back. Andrew is no "Libertarian" or "conservative". He is an agent for the gay and liberal community that hates good folks that find that lifestyle repulsive.

[jexit]

FWIW, I believe Sullivan has been reduced to troll status, even though he maintains a frequently visited (I assume at least) blog. I personally have *PLONK*ed him, so I can't comment on the specifics of your debate with him on this issue. Admittedly, this is therefore a pretty uninformed comment on the specifics of his argument in this case, but I believe that most (or at least many) fair-minded folks will agree with my assertion on Andrew's reduction to troll.

I recommend the *PLONK* approach, but you may continue to engage with or against him as you see fit.

[Blaine]

... it was valid news...
No it wasn't which was the point of this exercise. When the reporting becomes the valid news, we need to take a deep breath. Shotgunning the information and then seeing what comes of it makes you a part of the story, not a reporter.