Warning! The article you are about to read...

I have been viciously disappointed with the media for most of my adult life. Therefore, I am hoping to make this the first in a series of harangues on the media that are aimed at absolutely nobody in particular and have no hope of actually bringing about any real change in our society.

The media ecosystem has evolved to a point where the interests of the journalists are too closely aligned with the people that they are supposed to be covering. This symbiosis has made it so that politicians seeking to influence the debate simply need to develop relationships with like-minded editors and reporters who sanitize the political spin through the use of "blind quotes" or "background briefings." Judith Miller's complicity in pushing the Iraq WMD story is one of the most disturbing examples this. Unfortunately, the use of unattributed sources happens regularly in all areas of media coverage.

The problem with unattributable sources is clear - they do not provide the reader with enough information to evaluate the claims being made. Are the sources acting altruistically or are they pushing an hidden agenda? Are they expert enough or familiar enough with the issue to actually provide valid analysis? However, the argument in favor of confidential sources is compelling. Without the guarantee of confidentiality, many sources would not come forward for fear of retribution, which would result in the public knowing less information.

What to do? Here is a simple proposal: news outlets should follow the standards set by Wikipedia with regard to sourcing. If an item uses unattributed sources there should be a disclaimer prominently displayed either at the top of the article or, in the case of TV news, in the lower third graphic. Journalists will still be free to work their sources in the same ways, whistle blowers and leakers will still have protection and the public will have the benefit of knowing up front how they want to evaluate the claims made.

Now I can foresee some pushback from the media on this, since articles with "warning labels" will most likely arouse the suspicion of readers and possibly make them less likely to read or believe the piece. My response? That's kind of the point now, isn't it?