Usually, a single-source story is simply that – where journalists have one source. But, The Gazette has done something even better: They have a multiple, one-source story.
I know The Gazette can’t get to Afghanistan (well, they could, but it costs a lot of money), but does that mean a story about the Iowa National Guard and its agribusiness efforts needed to be pepper with blanket statements about how the soldiers were “cultivating trust and confidence” with Afghans in a “war-torn Middle Eastern country?” Just because we aren’t there means we should write only positive things?
But here’s a better question: Does a story become the “objective” or “fair and balanced” (or whatever other term we are using in journalism today) the more sources we have — even if they are all saying the same thing?
Here are some of the statements — all attributed, of course, to sources (the bold is mine) — that I think highlight the problems of multiple, one-source stories:
Cultivating trust and confidence were as important as improving crop yields and livestock health on the Iowa National Guard’s recent agricultural development mission in Afghanistan, team leaders say.
Both objectives — improved agricultural practices and trust in Americans — will help Afghanistan resist pressure from the Taliban and other insurgents and to stand on its own when U.S. troops withdraw from the war-torn Middle Eastern country next year, the leaders said.
…
By the time their 10-month mission ended in mid-June, the Afghan people had come to regard the Iowans as “honest, hardworking people who care about them and want to help them build a positive life for themselves,” said Bargfrede, a 31-year Guard member from Ankeny.
…
The team’s public affairs officer, Air Force Capt. Peter Shinn, said he thought the Iowans’ mentoring of local officials — helping them become effective public servants and positive representatives of the Afghanistan government — also will pay long-term dividends.
In several of the programs, “we provided infrastructure and support so the Afghans themselves could deliver much needed and appreciated services,” Shinn said.
…
Capt. Scott Rottingham, 30, who farms east of Waterloo, said agriculture in Kunar Province bears little resemblance to Iowa’s large-scale production of meat and grain. Rottingham described the Kunar soil as “moon dust,” with little organic matter and the consistency of powder.
Even so, he said, the Afghans grow State Fair-quality fruits, vegetables and nuts.
…
“All I can say is that I left with a really positive feeling that we had made a good, lasting impression on the farmers and officials we met,” Adams said.
There you have it. One of the best multiple, one source stories.
Now, there may be a handful of people speaking, and leaders cited, and quotes from different voices, but the message that this story sends through each of those sources is the same — Americans did great to save this struggling and backwards people.
OK, an even more tempered response to this story would suggest that several sources still act as a single source if those sources do not provide depth, perspective, and maybe even a little conflict.
To dissect the problems of this particular story even more (I’ll just select a few):
Cultivating trust and confidence were as important as improving crop yields and livestock health on the Iowa National Guard’s recent agricultural development mission in Afghanistan, team leaders say.
Of course “team leaders” would say this. Do we have anyone else saying otherwise? Who would that be?
By the time their 10-month mission ended in mid-June, the Afghan people had come to regard the Iowans as “honest, hardworking people who care about them and want to help them build a positive life for themselves,” said Bargfrede, a 31-year Guard member from Ankeny.
How the hell do we know this?
In several of the programs, “we provided infrastructure and support so the Afghans themselves could deliver much needed and appreciated services,” Shinn said.
Who said these services were needed and appreciated? How are we measuring that? How do we know? Whose word do we take on this?
Rottingham described the Kunar soil as “moon dust,” with little organic matter and the consistency of powder.
Even so, he said, the Afghans grow State Fair-quality fruits, vegetables and nuts.
Moon dust. Well, I could do a whole thing on that statement alone that would suggest such terminology about “someone else’s” land is a deeper message about “the other” and the notion of the different, the bizarre, the less-than, the away.
But what’s even more interesting — and provides even more support for that argument — is that the veggies and other foods from “there” are measured in relationship to “our” foods and veggies, namely those at the State Fair.
But why is any of this important?
Well, first, if journalists are to hold themselves to some kind of standard, which is supposed to include issues related to sourcing, why did this story run as-is? (I am sending this to the editor and reporter to see.)
Second, sourcing in general is important. Even more so when it comes to sourcing stories about military and other forms of authority.
On one level, the press are to act as a watchdog. There isn’t much of that in this story. Indeed, this is anything but. All has been taken from the military (including the photograph) at face value.
On a deeper level, however, this story reveals the trust we as a society put into the words of authority figures, especially our men and women in uniform. (I would go as far as to say the notion of uniform fits other public officials, business owners, and public figures who wear the aura of importance and whom we also do not question.)
Another reason why this story is an important artifact of our culture is that it is likely believable by the public. Of course America is “there” to do good. Of course Iowans are helpful. Why would people not like us, or take our help? We have so much to offer.
It’s a shame this story lacks depth and proper sourcing. But, this story isn’t without its meaning. It is a great example of the ideological function of media — in this case, to build notions of nation at home. For those interested in the cultural meanings of news, this story could also be used as an example of authority run rampant in how media listen to anyone with a badge and perpetuate dominant ideology.
Perhaps for journalists, though, it would be enough to hold this story up as an example of what not to do.