The same causes, the same effects. A new journalistic bombshell has just triggered another major source hunt in Washington.
Politico’s publication of a U.S. Supreme Court document announcing a likely reversal of federal abortion law is described as one of the most sociopolitically impactful journalistic exclusives since the scoop of washington post that sparked the Watergate scandal fifty years ago. So, inevitably, the search for the sender gets under way to try to understand his motivations.
“The historical importance of the news is undeniable,” says Patrick White, professor of journalism at UQAM’s School of Media. There is talk of an upcoming decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, the draft of one of the nine judges, but it remains in the public interest. It is a journalistic stunt of an extremely important scale. »
With nuances of scale, Professor White suggests a connection with the exclusive broadcast of the Quebec budget by reporter Ralph Noseworthy on CFCF 12 in 1987. The parliamentary correspondent had found the document in the garbage cans near the Department of Finance.
The parallel with the investigative work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, which brought down President Richard Nixon, cannot however be established according to Marc-François Bernier, professor of communication at the University of Ottawa. Without taking anything away from the thunderclap effect of exclusive news, it recalls a basic distinction in the profession of journalist.
” A scoop, this is information that would not have come out otherwise, says the specialist in journalism ethics, who is preparing a book on field surveys in Quebec. The Watergate scandal is the result of a major journalistic investigation. There, with Politico, we are talking about an exclusivity following a leak. The information, that is to say the judgment, will come out one day or another. »
A new “deep throat”
The connections between this 21st century exclusivityand century and the scoop of the XXand can on the other hand be done with the speculations aroused again to find the source of the leak. The media and indeed all of American society have spent decades trying to identify the informant nicknamed Deep Throat by journalists Woodward and Bernstein.
Similarly, lobbyists, elected officials and many journalists and columnists search and speculate, wondering where the legal leak comes from and who benefits from it.
“When journalists try to find a journalist’s source, they are journalism about journalism,” explains Professor Bernier. It goes a bit against the orthodoxy of the milieu. At the same time, it cannot be said that there is no interest in knowing who leaked this information and with what motivations. As much as one must ensure the confidentiality of the source, as many others, in a pluralistic system, can try to identify it for the public good. »
He sums up the dilemma even more succinctly by saying that if he had been a reporter at Politico he would have released the exclusive, and that if he was a reporter at washington post or to New York Times, he would seek to understand who organized the escape. “Both options have their relevance in a society where there is plurality, competition between the media,” he says.
Pro-choicers may believe that an ally of their position on the Supreme Court wanted to warn them of the possibility of reversing the right to abortion. Anti-choices may on the contrary think that the draft reversing the 1973 decision was revealed in an attempt to prevent a possible change of position.
The Supreme Court, already deeply entangled in the political divisions of the country, if only by the partisan appointments of judges, has itself launched an investigation. It is led by Colonel Gail A. Curley, marshal of the institution.
Of the court’s 260 employees, only a handful (judges, clerks and secretaries) had access to the draft of the decision expected in June. No such document has been leaked for decades. The 98-page text stamped 1st draft and sent to Politico is a photocopy of a stapled document, which seems to eliminate the hypothesis of a hack of the legal site.
“I think this Supreme Court investigation is window dressing,” said Patrick White of UQAM. Anyway, journalists will never reveal their source. And all his identification could lead to is a dismissal if the casting comes from a secretary or a clerk. »
The source strategy
The broadcast media also marks the importance of changes in the information sector with the digital revolution. Politico, founded in 2007 by former washington post, produces and relays only political news and analysis through a magazine distributed free of charge in the capital and especially on paid digital platforms. The group includes a site (politico.com), newsletters, podcasts and online radio stations that have become essential for the American elite.
“This new specialized media has an excellent reputation. He has become a reference in political journalism, somewhat the equivalent in his field of New York Times or washington post, the two major information standards in the United States,” says Professor White. He adds that the specialized site has just hired Quebecer Philippe J. Fournier as a polls analyst.
Politico is now owned by German group Springer, which paid it US$1 billion, the largest investment in its history. the washington post, by comparison, is now owned by wealthy Amazon site owner Jeff Besos. His place as the richest human is disputed by Elon Musk who has just paid for the social network Twitter.
“All the media have been new at some point and Politico is also there to make its name,” continues Professor Bernier. The pure players, as the French say, have a tradition to build to acquire their credentials in the media ecosystem. That’s what did Mediapart in France. It is also interesting to see that the source, that is to say someone somewhere, judged that it was more profitable to leak the document to this media. The source also has strategic interests, it should not be forgotten. »