Journalists at the Heart of the Ebola Outbreak

By Adrienn Keszei

Nov 2, 2015

I found The Ebola Story very appealing not only because it provided valuable, expert information about the spread of the disease, but because of the human stories that helped the detached foreign readers identify with those suffering through the epidemic. Although these articles are not classic investigative pieces, since the outbreak was heavily publicized, and there was no conspiracy behind it to reveal, the journalists used an investigative approach when they travelled to Ebola-stricken countries to get the full story. 

Access, especially in this particular case, was key to ensuring that readers around the world get credible and insider reporting that is not based on details acquired from other news organizations, but includes the hands-on experiences of those involved in the battle against the deadly virus: the experiences of the doctors and patients in Africa. The journalists involved in the writing of these articles provided an authentic and diverse picture about the Ebola outbreak, often risking their own safety, or to be more exact, their lives. 

The sourcing of these stories is first-class. The journalists used a wide variety of sources that verify the credibility of the stories told. Officials working for the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, or Doctors Without Borders are all quoted. Information was also received from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Guinean Health Ministry, and hospital workers in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. With all the information acquired from the sources above, the journalists could provide hard facts about the disease, the numbers of those who died of Ebola, details about the (insufficient) budgets provided to battle the virus, the magnitude of the outbreak, or the reasons of the delayed response and the failure to track how the virus was spreading. 

However, what made these articles especially fascinating were the stories about everyday people living inside the epidemic, experiencing the cruelty and the unimaginable speed of the virus every second of every day. These people may not be experts, but they possessed first-hand knowledge about Ebola, as most of those quoted in the articles had lost family members, friends, or colleagues within a span of only a few days. The reporting largely relied on the information provided by officials and stories shared by average people, and at no point could I detect opinionated writing or biased commentary. 

The photos were also an important factor in making the writing transparent. When the author talked about how Ebola destroys relationships because people cannot touch their loved ones, this phenomenon is illustrated with photos about patients isolated from others, with the shocking sight of small children lying on the ground in agony, and completely alone. The excellent photo journalism contributed to the credibility and authenticity of the reporting.

I admire the journalists involved in the writing of this series of articles because they did not hesitate to go to hospitals or sit in ambulances where probably hundreds of Ebola patients have died before. This is why I doubt there could be any hidden motive behind these articles. The bravery and integrity of these journalists has been proven by their willingness to go to the heart of the Ebola outbreak and I seriously doubt that they would falsify or omit information to endanger the credibility of the stories that they risked their lives to produce. 

Investigating the killing of Osama bin Laden

By J.F. Mezo

Photo by Seth Anderson: https://www.flickr.com/photos/swanksalot/

NEW YORK, Oct. 31 – Seymour M. Hersh’s investigative essay, ‘The Killing of Osama bin Laden’ offers a clear look into the controversy surrounding the death of Al-Qaeda’s former leader. In order to build a complex picture, Hersh investigates multiple aspects of the story and relies of various sources, ranging from the official statements of the White House to allegation about the mission that resulted in bin Laden’s death.  And while the wide variety of cited sources is undoubtedly one of the main strengths of his work, the transparency of sourcing also makes it generally easy for the reader to put the pieces of the puzzle into place.

            However, Hersh also relies on anonymous sources, a practice that is generally regarded as risky by journalists, since by citing anonymous sources, the author effectively asks his audience to trust that he was thorough in his investigation, putting his credibility on the line. While it might seem like a real gamble to make, there are certain situations when the journalist has no choice but to omit the names of his sources in order to protect them – and, as most would agree, asking a government official to provide details on how taking down the most famous terrorist leader of our time was a premeditated act on the part of the American government certainly calls for precautions.

            On the other hand, Hersh does a good job at establishing his sources’ credibility, since their status or (former) position makes it entirely conceivable that they would have relevant information about the case. His main anonymous source is cited as a retired senior US intelligence official, and (while a bit less transparent) another anonymous source is revealed to be a source within the CIA, while yet another is labelled a former Seal commander. It is easy to imagine that people at such ranks would have insider information about the operation, even more so since their claims seem to be backed up by the former Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, in his memoir, Duty. Their motives for providing information, however, remain largely unclear, which leaves room for speculations .

            In his essay, Hersh also mentions a couple of readily available sources and documents that the public can access, for example the statements issued by the White House and the published personal accounts of two navy Seals who participated in the operation, contrasting them with the information provided by his sources. By doing so, he points those who wish to read about the story in even greater detail towards useful resources, which further increases his credibility.

            To sum up, while the anonymity of some of his most important sources might set the story back on certain levels, Hersh’s efforts to establish the credibility of his sources and provide the reader with the broadest possible scope inspires trust in his audience. Although using materials provided by many different sources allows him to explore multiple aspects of the story, his narration remains clear and easy to follow throughout the essay, making his piece a must-read for those studying investigative journalism.

The Aftermath of Bin Laden’s Death: what’s sourcing got to do with it?

By L. Boshuyzen  

Eastern Afghanistan (Jan. 14, 2002) 
Credit: U.S. Navy 

It was on the 21st of May this year, loosely four years after the United States Navy SEALS single-handedly and without informing any Pakistani officials flew into Abbottabad, took down Osama bin Laden and buried him at sea according to Islamic tradition, that Seymour M. Hersh published an article in the London Review of Books stating that much of this were “blatant lies”. Quite a bold statement—but not new for Hersh, who in 1970 won a Pulitzer Prize for his exclusive disclosure of the Vietnam War tragedy at the hamlet of My Lai and 35 years later exposed the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Not unlike the articles previously mentioned, this article provoked controversy, governmental denial and accusations of ‘conspiracy theory’ but it is not sure if his most recent exposé will be included in this list of highly acclaimed articles. Not uninterestingly, all articles Hersh is most heralded for were published in the New York Times. This time round the newspaper told Hersh that his bin Laden story wasn’t quite ready for print yet –aka in need of more research, but instead of continuing the investigation that stretched over several years already Hersh published the article in  London Review of Books instead. 

And does Hersh really make statements that his sourcing leaves us to believe on a leap of faith? The tricky part is, that like all journalists Hersh also needs to make sure not to compromise his sources. And this becomes difficult—with major claims are made by anonymous sources, in this case on the USA side a retired American intelligence official’ the incentives of this source remain unclear. Also the sheer number of sources, Hersh only identifies one American, and a few Pakistani sources, are not the ample evidence that readers would like to be persuaded with. But the same scrutiny needs to be applied towards the US government, who do not offer much proof. Were Pakistani military officials informed about the mission? It is hard to refute Hersh for making this claim if we take a look at improbability that the sophisticated Pakistani secret service (ISI) and their technology wouldn’t have noticed the helicopters coming in and one crashing in the backyard. And then there’s the account of the villagers that lived near Abbottabad, claiming that the local police instructed them to stay in and not talk to any journalists. 

Still, in all of his major claims, there is a robust narrative but sourcing remains thin. He does mention Robert Gates’ memoir and refer to a few external sources. But the major claims are all shrouded by anonymity. That the ISI and not the CIA’s own intelligence provided the whereabouts of Osama takes it a step further, and would discredit the CIA of its most victorious moment of the decade. Some point to leaked documents to disprove Hersh’s statements about the CIA’s ignorance of Bin Laden’s whereabouts, and why Hersh wouldn’t have been able to substantiate his story with some documents remains an unanswered question. Especially as Hersh points exactly to this as a weak point in relation to the burial, claiming that there is no proof the traditional burial at sea even took place. What it in the end of the day all seems to come down to is trust—trust in Hersh’s legacy and intuition and trust in the fact-checkers of London Review of Books. Not only the incentives of anonymous sources should be taken into account, but also the reasons of journalists to take a certain stance. And self-evidently the same goes for the government. And when it comes to refutation of the official story, it seems that Hersh isn’t the only one who finds that the puzzle pieces didn’t fit together. Read Mahler’s take on Hersh’s piece- a thoughtful background story and critical evaluation of its sources that was published in the New York Times here.