question is, i'd like to know how important to you, how important are anonymous sources in the world and journalism? well, they've become increasingly important over the last few years. although i study i was just looking at showed, was a 2011 study and show that they, it peaked in 970 and declined up to 2011. i don't know the data from than 20 level to now, but it's an integral part, particularly of foreign policy and international relations and national security reporting. so it's a very, very tricky subject. i'm glad you have me on to talk about it, because there, so it's fraught with lots of difficulties and dangerous for the profession. if you rely on anonymous sources too much, you're in trouble and you can also be misled by them, or you can willingly participate in basically just information for a variety of reasons. so it's, it's a big topic. now some argue that quoting anonymous sources in

a story actually removes accountability. what's your view on that? do some sources actually warrant saying anonymous? yes, obviously as certain stories they want remaining anonymous is the judgment that a reporter and it has to make it so it's a you shouldn't abuse and use too much. i mean, if you're, let's say you're covering a negotiation, whether that be a union manager, negotiation or diplomatic negotiated countries. and you have somebody who's in the room, you know, they're in the room and they're willing to talk to you. but obviously they cannot be they cannot be identified because they do for a whole number of reasons. they would be hurting their own position with their government or their company or the law firm, or they would, they could screw up the negotiations if it's known that one side is leaking in the other. so what you really want to get story,

only way you know what's going on in that room is if you talk to somebody who's in there, when they are a direct witness, you can rely on the fact that they have were present. and they probably know what's going on, of course they could mislead you. this is the tricky part. since they're anonymous, they can get away with being after i say, disingenuous for misleading or outright lying to you to get to favor their position . that's why you've got to be very careful when you use only one on the source of the story, you'd want to get somebody from the other side in that negotiation and ask the same questions. if you can't get the other side, you've got to make a decision, whether you actually believe this person or not. and the way you could do that is not only about talking to another source, but trying to find other avenues to verify what they're saying. again, you verified that they are in a position to know they were in the wrong. ok, that's fine. what you're telling you, it does a job with what was, let's say, said previously by his side or our side of the negotiation,

was that close to the positions that they've taken earlier or is a completely off the wall completely new direction. and you'd have to follow up and ask for how this change. so you can sus, out from interviewing the source, whether he's telling you, or she's telling you the truth or not. i can tell you a story where i got slightly burned once by my bureau chief. i was, i will be 25 years at the united nations headquarters in new york. i was the wall street journal corresponding to the boston globe correspondence and for a time for the german press agency to pay the english service. and there was some behind the scenes close door meeting that the secretary general had with his top political advisors. i can't remember exactly what the issue was. it was just a big hop story of the day of the un. it was sometime in the mid ninety's. it's almost 30 years ago. so if you meant to forget him, but i didn't speak someone who was in the room and he told me something and i had to make a decision. i believed him. it seemed to be valid based on what i already knew

about the story in the context. and i put it out when you're in a wire. so if you want even more pressure, especially in those days because newspapers had really gone on the internet the way they are today, where they're almost acting like why services themselves. and they want to get the story out on the, on the internet and those days it was in the next day's newspaper. so you could take more time as a daily news report to actually mailed out a story. you had an old database that again, story for you are normally 6 pm deadline. even after that you can add stuff. but the pressure, by the way, this paper being on the internet now is the same as on a washer. so i published a story, un spokesman for the sector general denied it. my bureau chief got furious, they denied it. he said, i said, well, it doesn't mean it's not true. so just because, you know, a official source denied something doesn't mean that the source was not telling you the truth. so you report that they denied it. you leave it out there and is doing much capital form the reader of the context of the store. and they can decide

whether the official source denying it is telling the truth whether the source telling the truth. yeah, i do and you want to sources. i can't, and you think it's vital and that you feel secure enough in it. i think you can go one source but you can be burned. so you're going to be very careful about that's. that's just one example of my own experience and i can tell you so. 2 the a p story regarding the ukranian missile that struck poland. it killed to the a p reporter, quoted, a suppose it anonymous. d. o. d official. when that story broke, alleging russia had struck poland bloomers, lensky ran with that story as did many other leaders, effectively calling for a full scale nato response against russia. now this could have led to a nuclear winter for the world. within 48 hours, it turned out the reporter lied about the anonymous source after investigations on

the ground revealed that the missile was actually ukrainian. now had that story been allowed to further propagate. this really could have changed life on this planet as we know it, your thoughts on that one? well, this is really the matter about the source because you've got rich routinely people inside the government, particularly the intelligence agencies will also depend on in this case. that will tell report is things that further the interests of the us will be a gender of the us. what you've got to be very, very careful. we've got a situation now careers in journalism pressure to get it right to get it 1st rather than get it right. and this mentality that permeates corporate media, that of trust government source. and instead of the opposite, we should be more skeptical of people in government, particularly in a children's because i mean part of their job description is disinformation. this is what they do. so you're going to be very careful when someone in the c, i a,

or the f, b i, or the n a se, tells you something or the department of defense, or anyone and government, a high level on an international story of this kind of importance. again, i said, there are instances where you could go with one source, in my opinion. if it's not that vital to restore the more important it gets in terms of the consequences to the public. in this case, yes, the possibility that it could have spark orbiting nato and russia, which could have gotten out of hand up to even including maybe a nuclear exchange. this is a store you really better make sure it's correct and the idea that this recorded, what was one source was outrageous ab worse for me was that his added b edit is agreed they signed off on it. somebody leaked that. those emails to the washington post and we learned that the editor said though i actually wanted it, it was for this thing. i can't imagine that a u. s. official would not be telling the truth about this. that was the clearest

admission in decades of, of the problem of stablish rent media globally going along with what the u. s. officials say they believe in the red, white and blue that the u. s. is always telling the truth that the u. s. interests around the world, a noble that was spreading democracy, not geostrategic and economic interests, et cetera. and this is where this is the major problem we've got here with the report is not what is anonymous sources because you know what they know, they know that journalist what the scoop, they can easily manipulate a reporter and telling them what they want to hear in order to get the story out there. if the cia made a statement or the pentagon directly, you know, especially not tells agency, it may not be believed by the public because as i said, they were involved in this information as part of their job. but if they filter it or launder it through the new york times, so shaded press, the public is assuming,

well, the journals did their job and vetted this information. so this more likely to be true than if they said it directly. so this is why you have to be so damn careful, not to just take what you ask, the governor or any government official tells you. this is a situation of my view where reporters are vicariously living through powerful people that they cover. they want a piece of this political power, and they don't realize that journals and has a different power and is human some ways more powerful than them because we can hold those powerful people to work out on behalf of the public. this is the crux of the issue. are you, is your audience, the reader, are you serving their interests or are you serving the interest of powerful government like united states? this will every point has to ask themselves and it's gone. i mean, we did see that maybe in the $907.00 is more but right now the prevailing oh, attitude amongst corporate reports and i worked 25 years and it's,

i know is to believe the government source. and in this instance, it was joe biden, who was at the summit in indonesia, within hours, who said no, we don't think it was russia. i mean for him to come out and say that because he knew that what this could mean, what this could lead to. so was the president united states letter respond to this 8 p storm and the a p. fired this reporter. i don't know that he admitted that he lied and we, and i don't know that he ever released who the sources. but i do know that he was fired and those editors apparently got away with it. and it's their ultimate responsibility because they was supposed to. i just read before this interview, the a p rules are using anonymous sources and the report must reveal to the editor who that sources. i don't know if that happened in this instance. but if he, if the reporter did the editor, then his response, ultimately for this story going out, because the editor can kill the story reporter cannot. so i blame the editors more,

but they got away with it. we don't know the names of the at a resort. we do know the name of the reporter. he lost his job. this is a textbook example of what goes wrong when anonymous lost, it could be in no better one than that. probably prompted you to have this program because this story will go down as why you have to be careful and how you should not just take government sources at face value unless you can get in that instance at least another source. and you may be from nato, maybe from a polish government from ukraine. what are they saying now? we know what ukraine was saying, alaska ran with it. and this story had the benefit on the side of showing what a liar zalinski can be. because even after by the said, no, it wasn't russia, it was ukraine. zalinski continued to say it was russia. why? because they knew they screwed up, that they sent that muscle into poland by mistake. they kill people. so i, my god, they gotta admit this. they're a bit trouble, so this must be russia. i mean,

isn't that the refrain? let's blame russian. whatever goes wrong, hillary, clint lose electric. let's blame russia. so this is what he did there, and he was exposed only bought by by themself only because of the ultimate consequences could have led to. so we aren't, we got a real understanding of how you train in government lies. of governments lie this instance you crank and how the gullibility or the, the desire to believe government, so you could be doing their job for them helping the u. s. government spread the marks. i mean, it's pitiful. the state of american corporate, mainstream journalism. and this store to pitt, emma's is what can go wrong when you don't know what you're doing in terms of using an anonymous source. i jo loria is gonna stay with us coming up next. now, more than ever, governments are cracking down on journalists to reveal their sources and methods killing, assigned as a prime example. we'll discuss it when we return. that type mammo will be right

back. ah. a with by the middle of the 20th century, the portuguese colonial empire was in an acute crisis. a particularly 10th situation had developed in mozambique the people of this country were put in a humiliating position, income inequality ramp, and illiteracy. disrespect by the portuguese for the local traditions, led to mass unrest in 964. the liberation front of mozambie, brailey mo,

began its armed struggle for freedom. the regular army was not easy to resist, but the guerrillas inflicted considerable damage on the invaders groups. the fighters against the colonial regime were supported by the soviet union and china. whereas the united states and great britain took the side of the invaders, the portuguese responded to the guerrillas attacks with cruel counter insurgency. however, greeley most 10 year courageous struggle was a success after the overthrow of the fascist regime in portugal in 1974, the new authorities surrendered. a year later, lisbon fully recognized the independence of mozambie. but the victory had been gained at a high price during the war, mozambique had lost tens of thousands of its sons and daughters to what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy,

even foundation, let it be an arms race is on offense. very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult. time. time to sit down and talk. lou, welcome back to the m. o i, manila chan, joe loria decided to stick around. thank you for staying with us, joe. so can you think of other examples where anonymous sources are maybe bad sources got published and those in power use that information as a pretext to implement bad policy or something like that? i mean, w m, d's come to mind for me. yeah, that was curve ball, this anonymous source that everybody ran with it about the w and deep,

but in the iraq lead up to the iraq invasion rehab government official saying on the record light rumsfeld cheney and condo, lisa rice, that they had no, they had to w m d, remember the mushroom cloud statement by condo lisa, right? so that was so disgusting. i the need to get the public onside in order to go to war. they don't want to be interfering with the conduct of war. we see this now in ukraine. how anybody who challenges the official narrative about ukraine is kicked off a twitter is is hounded by trolls. is a, has their paypal account suspended as ours did at consumers because they didn't like ukrainian coverage gotten a news guard gave us a red mark because they said that we published false content about ukraine a that there was a cool 2014 at the u. s. at a roland a and b that, that you're not using as an influence, a large influence in your grand society. nobody knows anything about ukraine. would deny that. except this is how this information works. it is to deny the obvious

facts and stick with the myths that the people have been drawn at drummed into their heads. so, but a curve ball is the example there. they built up a frenzy in this country before the in the united states. and before that invasion was the most chilling period that i could remember even worse than now, the lead up to the invasion of iraq, but people were fight look good. so donna, you have the highest rated show on emerson, b, c, he started, he was skeptical, and the guy was on a don't really, he would have a talk show and he was more skeptical and the new york times and seen him than all of them. because he the same wait a minute, do they really m w n d on the yes. got rid are on yet people i thought it was the un weapons inspector was saying, we don't have evidence and he should know, he contradicted rumsfeld. he contradicted, but she can't contradict. cheney. and so did. phil donahue, in his show, was cancelled. it was the highest rated show,

which was sometimes even politics when it comes to war and creating a war fever. it trumps even a profit at a private lose child. but it is an extraordinary statement right there. so that was one example where anonymous sources, i played a role, but they also went on the record with this, there are probably many also don't come to mind immediately. right now, we're on a lesser we're talking about war and possible nuclear war. when on the sources can be dangerous, but we saw hold washer get comes to mind. so many dam. where roney a story, somebody made a list of like 50 articles in the mainstream media that turned out later to be absolutely false and most of them had to be retracted. and there was one by and nbc, he and he got fired a long time, nbc intelligence reporter who wrote something about a russia being involved. i can't remember what it was and he got fired. i mean,

there were tons, i would say russia gate is full of the ford, i would stories that was leaked to the mainstream press. the turn out to be absolute rubbish because they had an agenda and they were pushing hard. and this is a great example of how long the sources can abuse reporters who want to be abused. because they want to run with the story because it helps their careers. they get scoops, they know a diplomats government officials, the competition between reporters, they play one of one off against the other. they'll leaked $11.00 time the link to another, the other time they're fighting one another. and then by the way, i should mentioned before, i forget this very important part about circular confirmation. because if you don't try to get 2 sources as you should, and if from the same agency or even other agencies, if there is an agreement amongst the intelligence agencies of the ministration about what the story is going to be, what the story is full of lies as it might be,

or meeting information or partially true, if they all have that and you get it from one source in one agency and then you call another one and it'll say the same thing. oh yeah, it's true. you have to sources not telling you things that aren't true. so it's impossible to go outside of government sometimes when these, when we're in the policy formulation stage. so sometimes you have to say, well, i'm not going to run the story. i'd rather be beaten than put out something false, particularly once a question of peace and war. now there appears to be a rise in the use of anonymous sources in media these days. i mean i, i can't find any precise data on that matter. but if you look at places like the new york times or cnn, stories are littered with quotes from anonymous sources. should the public be wary of those stories? well, there is the study by duffy and freeman to professors 2011, which said that it peaked in the seventy's and gone down. but that since 2011 and

may have gone up again. so it does seem like there is an enormous amount of on the sources being used all the editors at the times in the post and all. so we don't want to use it. we're trying to cut it down. apparently it's like 20 percent of the store is contin anonymous sources now, or at least at the time of that study. and i came down from like 30 to 40 percent. so it exists the public asked to be has to be skeptical. now that's not their job, their jobs, whatever their job is, they don't have the time to find out they relying on journalists to spend their full time getting information and vetting that information, being skeptical of that information before presenting it to the public. so there's all about trust. the media only exists between trust in the news organization and the public. if that trust breaks down there and big trunk and the trust is you doing your job, you're not giving me crap. you're given me stuff that you know is true, as far as you can prove it, and that you're not just being

a funnel for government. this information propaganda being spewed by the government through the mainstream press that make a look like that they've done their job. the government official leaking this realizes at the public as a trust or has at a trust that the journalist is doing his job and they wouldn't. they may not believe it directly from the cia, but they think all we've got to filter here. the newspaper has vetted this information and they wouldn't put it in the paper if it weren't true. so they, this is what it's all based on. but i think the public's become more and more skeptical of the report is who shouldn't be skeptical of the government. and the desk why the skepticism should be at the level of the government of the reporter with the government source, not public having to be skeptical of the reporter and of the newspaper. but that's where we're at right now. i think the polls show that people have lost all interest or faith in mainstream media and we'll see how poorly they do in terms of,

of the social media. look on social media. this is opened up a huge problem to the mainstream press. there's a lot of crap on social media, lot of garbage and stuff that's not vetted. it's not true. and this is matt, but people are able to speak up now and they do not trust big newspapers, particularly on these big stories like peace and war, where we are intelligence matters where they, they've seen too many failures. and the a piece for being, as i said, the peer to me of this, but there were many, many want all the rush against or is it turned out not to be true. all the w n. d story, of course in iraq. that wasn't true. and there doesn't seem to be any consequences suffered by the ministry media except in terms of being fired by their companies except the one at one instance i mentioned nbc, but the washington post editorial guy, fred hide, who's now passed away in the last year. he worked all kinds of lies about w, m d, and he got promoted. i mean these people are ridiculous,

but we've got the public losing trust. so there's a real crisis here. and at the center of this crisis is the use of anonymous sources that turn out to be peddling false information. another aspect to anonymous sources are those things that go viral on social media, right? it's often and vetted many times untrue. those stories or tropes, they get traction almost instantly online through social media. we might even call them fake news. but we've seen world leaders such as justin trudeau, the canadian prime minister, by into something he saw on twitter about iran and act it almost reflexively to fake twitter news. how dangerous is this sort of behavior from somebody in his position? you would assume that the prime minister nato member is going to get briefing on his intelligence, and he would be toler, that's true. or not that he or someone in his office. i don't think it's up. and he said that someone in his office just ran with that shows that the mentality is

there and i want to do whatever they kept to undermine the iranian government to pop up these protesters. so that kind of a thing, it was about $15000.00. i believe so much. we did. they just immediately were actually did it. that's really negative side of social media. there are lots of positives, as i mentioned before, the public can weigh in now. but the negative side is that if you could put out anything you want and the intelligence agencies and others are putting out garbage, they have whole teams working on social media, facebook and twitter, putting out this information trolling people, people are paid to do that. so this is assess pool social media. if a prime minister can be fooled, you can imagine anyone can be fully got to be very careful about that too. about seeing a tweet, looking about who said it, especially if there's a long to cry, the idea that you can put up an account on facebook, twitter without using your real name. you can just give yourself any handle that to me. i'm right away. i'm skeptical that doesn't want to use the real name. so it's,

yes, twitter has just especially twitter as just that submitted this issue of this information getting after it's circulated. and as i say, intelligence services used to help promote this information. and you also get drowned out when you say something that's true. if you don't have the followers, right? if you don't get really, we tweeted so and then somebody puts are alive. he has people who can between people think that if, because you're big because you have a blue check that therefore you are trustworthy. i mean, this is, you have to be w, skeptical on social media that you do even of dementia press, which at this point, one must be really, really skeptical because they're not skeptical of their sources. all right, be intrepid an award winning jo loria of consortium news. thank you for being with us and that's going to do it for this week's episode. modus operandi the show that

dig deep into foreign policy. i'm your host manila chan. thank you for tuning in. we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo ah ah, operation, the aerodynamic began shortly after well want to last it almost 3 decades. it wasn't a major effort to try and split the ukraine off from the soviet union, u. s. intelligence together with hypnos, executioners trained hundreds of saboteurs to be deployed in the soviet union, stalkers on the east of monday. so we'll have started with service unions more in the us today,

security. so this of ukraine use is not only the statistic methods, but also the ideology of the nationalist, a rec center that i'm here to plead with, you, whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. seriously, why watch something that's so different opinions that you won't get anywhere else working with please. if you have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your fax for you. go ahead, change and whatever you do. don't watch my show stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the wayne thing

a 1000000, but they should be medial law exposure to you. guys do a real honest with project with the money and don't love the school in which with

i deal with with the pentagon struggles to keep it secret leak classified documents reveal the u. s. has been spying not only on its adversaries, but also on strategic allies and also a head on the program this hour if there is another so that you have these hidden sanctions that were experienced last spring, they could lead to family in an rti exclusive but chairman of the russian union of brain exportation reveals the all the official hurdles the west is using the block trade in the holding the sanction rain and fertilizers market version russian no longer allowed. the latest crackdown out the picturesque.