OBSESSIVE AMERICAN STORY ATTRIBUTION IS BECOMING A JOKE, ACCORDING TO NO ONE IN PARTICULAR
February 7th 2010 05:10
One of the increasing murmurs in the media industry is that the problems with modern journalism is really a problem with American journalism, which has become cluttered with jargon and places emphasis on form over function.
Perhaps one of the most annoying features of American journalism is the obsession with attribution, especially attribution to no specific person or organisation.
American journalism is now littered with attributions that in effect are non attributions.
Here is a list of examples culled over the last month from major US newspapers and wire services such as Bloomberg:
- according to a person with knowledge of the situation.
- according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the terms are private
- according to a person familiar with the matter
- a source with knowledge of the event said
- according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation.
- said a person close to the transaction who asked for anonymity because details were supposed to be kept private
This obsessive attribution at times becomes so meaningless it verges on satire – and of course not only are the attributions meaningless but may border on bogus.
For example on December 9, 2009 Bloomberg reported that Lachlan Murdoch’s Illyria Pty Ltd was “poised to announce the purchase of most of Nielsen Business Media, publisher of the Hollywood Reporter, by as early as today, ‘according to two people familiar with the matter’.”
But those two people could not have been too familiar with the matter because on December 10 the Financial Times reported that Lachlan Murdoch had pulled out of the bidding.
Once upon a time the golden rule in journalism, especially in business journalism, was that if the story could not be attributed to a named source, then it was no story, merely speculation.
Many newspapers would float that speculation in their columns, and the column’s reputation would rest on how many of these speculations proved correct.
Some newspapers still adhere to this discipline and a good example is The Australian Financial Review which floats a lot of its unsourced speculative news in its popular and informative columns.
This in turn causes US outlets such as Bloomberg to get its bloomers in a twist when reporting on news from other outlets where an attribution, no matter how questionable, is lacking.
For example, on December 11 last year Bloomberg reported, “Independent News & Media Plc is lining up an independent adviser to manage a sell-down of its holding in APN News & Media, the Australian Financial Review reported, without saying where it got the information.
“The sale of its 32 percent stake may be completed early next year, the newspaper said in its Street Talk column today. “
And again this year on February 3 Bloomberg reported, “Seven Media Group may make a takeover offer for Consolidated Media Holdings, the Australian Financial Review reported in its Street Talk column, without saying where it got the information.”
Obviously Bloomberg would be happy if The Australian Financial Review simply said, “according to persons familiar with the matter.”
Then it would be perceived as a legitimate news story, not a speculative column item, and that’s essentially the problem.
Perhaps one of the most annoying features of American journalism is the obsession with attribution, especially attribution to no specific person or organisation.
American journalism is now littered with attributions that in effect are non attributions.
Here is a list of examples culled over the last month from major US newspapers and wire services such as Bloomberg:
- according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the terms are private
- according to a person familiar with the matter
- a source with knowledge of the event said
- according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation.
- said a person close to the transaction who asked for anonymity because details were supposed to be kept private
This obsessive attribution at times becomes so meaningless it verges on satire – and of course not only are the attributions meaningless but may border on bogus.
For example on December 9, 2009 Bloomberg reported that Lachlan Murdoch’s Illyria Pty Ltd was “poised to announce the purchase of most of Nielsen Business Media, publisher of the Hollywood Reporter, by as early as today, ‘according to two people familiar with the matter’.”
But those two people could not have been too familiar with the matter because on December 10 the Financial Times reported that Lachlan Murdoch had pulled out of the bidding.
Once upon a time the golden rule in journalism, especially in business journalism, was that if the story could not be attributed to a named source, then it was no story, merely speculation.
Some newspapers still adhere to this discipline and a good example is The Australian Financial Review which floats a lot of its unsourced speculative news in its popular and informative columns.
This in turn causes US outlets such as Bloomberg to get its bloomers in a twist when reporting on news from other outlets where an attribution, no matter how questionable, is lacking.
For example, on December 11 last year Bloomberg reported, “Independent News & Media Plc is lining up an independent adviser to manage a sell-down of its holding in APN News & Media, the Australian Financial Review reported, without saying where it got the information.
“The sale of its 32 percent stake may be completed early next year, the newspaper said in its Street Talk column today. “
And again this year on February 3 Bloomberg reported, “Seven Media Group may make a takeover offer for Consolidated Media Holdings, the Australian Financial Review reported in its Street Talk column, without saying where it got the information.”
Obviously Bloomberg would be happy if The Australian Financial Review simply said, “according to persons familiar with the matter.”
Then it would be perceived as a legitimate news story, not a speculative column item, and that’s essentially the problem.
| 29 |
| Vote |
