The New York Times is in the process of publishing an aggressive series of news articles analyzing al Qaeda documents collected from Kabul homes and businesses just after American troops entered Afghanistan. The series stands out from everyday war news coverage for several reasons, most of which shed light on the state of modern journalism.

“Reporters came upon the documents in musty basements and yards strewn with trash and grenades and mines,” according to the Times’ first article. Phrased with a twinge of self-promotion, the description of how reporters collected the tattered pages seems ambitious. The constraints of deadlines and push for productivity in a wavering economy make it difficult for reporters to embark upon lengthy analysis projects or even take the time to fill out open records requests and undergo legal battles to obtain government documents.

Although the Times admits their Afghani documents may paint an incomplete picture of al Qaeda life, the series of articles is ambitious. The documents range from descriptions of Taliban training camp recruits’ religious backgrounds to family grocery lists.

The articles convey what appears to be a wealth of information but describe it through an American lens. “This community of militants had progressed so far that it took on the feel of a bureaucracy,” the March 17 article reads. “There were forms to keep track of ammunition, spending and more. Al Qaeda commanders, like middle managers everywhere, griped about the bosses. In one letter, a commander commiserated with another about their boss’ lack of support, and tried to bolster his friend’s flagging morale, reminding him, ‘Jihad is, by definition, surrounded by difficulties.'”

Does an American audience really need cultural news to be filtered and presented from a familiar point of view? Is the journalist presenting an oversimplification of the culture by invoking such a metaphor?

What the Times found has an American equivalent of post-it notes, desk calendars and inner-office memos. If only al Qaeda used quip-y e-mails to delegate commands, maybe the Times’ series of articles would have appeared sooner.

The media relies on technology more every day. Filters and media spokespersons have a hand in most news content, even over the most well respected news organizations.

Official documents, the most concrete source of information a reporter can use, fall by the wayside as the 24-hour news cycle accelerates demand for quantity and speed of news.

Bob Williams, an ethics fellow for the Poynter Institute, which monitors the quality of journalism, questioned in a recent article whether using government spokespersons is ethical for journalists today. Using secondhand information such as spokespersons’ quotes compromises basic principles of journalism, like accuracy and fairness. But at the same time, the use of the words “spokesman,” “spokeswoman” and “spokesperson” in news stories in his own newspaper, the Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer, has risen 44 percent in the last year.

An archive search at www.badgerherald.com for the term “spokesman” (we prefer using the suffixes ?man and ?woman rather than the unisex “person”) comes up with more results than can be displayed. Even the renowned news organization that embarked on the massive analysis of thousands of al Qaeda documents is guilty. Searching just Monday’s content on www.nytimes.com comes up with 80 matches to the term. Wow.

Relying on secondary sources, like “official” spokespersons, is on the rise. The newsroom crunch for efficiency and the advent of 24-hour news networks such as CNN are changing the ethics behind journalism. Is old-fashioned document-based reporting floundering? Let’s hope not: the stuff documents reveal is the foundation solid journalism is built upon.

— Christine Lagorio is a junior majoring in journalism, history and English. She is news editor of The Badger Herald.