In 1873, Johannes Brahms composed "Variations on a Theme by Haydn". Creating compositions based on melodies by other composers was (and still is) common in the "classical" music world. The melody's originator is always cited in the title. The original composition attributed to Haydn, however, may not have actually been written by him. In fact, the actual source composer is unknown. This is cause for a certain amount of controversy in the music world. When this sort of thing happens in other aspects of our modern world, however, it seems to be accepted with nary a shrug of the shoulders.

Consider the media... One would hope that any company that purports to be a "news" organization would strive to deliver facts as uncolored as possible. In reality, that never happens. In fact, sometimes opinion or hearsay or outright fiction is delivered to the viewer as if it were something factual. FOX News is notorious for this, using the "some say" ruse. For example, they could report "some in the White House say President Obama has started smoking again". That sounds official, right? That sounds like some "insider" has become a "whistleblower" and alerted the media "off the record". Yet this could be completely made up and we'd never know, because the originator of the story is never cited. Here's a video clip from the documentary "Outfoxed" showing the "some say" in action:



Sometimes it isn't necessarily the news company, but the guests that come on the shows. We certainly can't hold the guests to any journalistic standards, but we can still hold the hosts to those standards. If a guest tosses off a "factoid" to support their point, the host should ask them to back up their claim by citing their source, right? Here's a video clip of John Steward castigating CNN for allowing guests to make all types of absurd claims and then not following up to verify them.

I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it: The print media is one of the few media outlets that still maintains some semblance of journalistic integrity. The better papers don't go to print with unverifiable stories. If they quote someone, they tend to provide the source. Perhaps it's because of libel laws. Perhaps it's because the printed word is so less ephemeral than TV. Whatever the reason, your "most trusted name in news" might be one of the few remaining big papers. They may show a political slant on their Op/Ed pages (actually, that's the proper place for it), or they may show some slant by their headlines, or the stories they choose to report (or not report), but they will generally not report something as fact if they can't verify it, nor toss of unattributed innuendo.

The "uncited source" theme can also be applied more abstractly in other areas of life, for example in the financial industry. A year ago, most Americans were introduced to a new term that is used in investment circles: "derivatives". The name sounds fairly benign, while remaining vague. When the banking industry collapsed, the finger was pointed at derivatives. What are they? They are essentially financial instruments that are abstracted from the actual asset. In other words, these banks and investment houses weren't buying and selling actual assets, they were trading paper that was attributed to another asset, but the actual value of the original asset was amplified for no reason other than to get more money from it. In some cases, the original asset could no longer even be found.

It's not unlike the game of "gossip" we played as kids, where one person whispers a phrase into the ear of another, and they repeat it to the person next to them, and so on down the line until the last person speaks aloud what should be the original phrase, but is instead something morphed beyond recognition. This is what happens in the news media with the "some say" comments, or the uncited statistic. The words are given life by virtue of being spoken, and then take on a life of their own. A bank's assets are based on paper that purportedly links back along a chain to something of value, but what that object is or what its value might truly be is lost to the labyrinth of hands changing and repackaging the variations on the theme.

What can we do? In the media world we have FactCheck.org and Media Matters. The Obama administration is trying to get a Consumer Protection agency specializing in the financial industry in place. Ultimately, it is up to us as responsible citizens to ensure that sources are cited, that facts are checked, that companies are not allowed to claim value where none exists. We must always ask "what is your source"? Otherwise, we are simply listening to variations on a theme, originator unknown.