Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Monday, June 26, 2006
Burning bad sources
Atrios thinks journalists should expose sources who provide fake information:
Burning sources who mislead you just seems like a nobrainer to me. Aside from punshing someone who aided and abetted your screwup, it also sends a signal to other would-be bullshitters that their attempts may not be consequence free.
I think there's a time and a place for exposing anonymous sources who have abuse a reporter's confidence. I have no way to judge whether this would be a case. There's a big difference, though, between sources who lie, sources who puff, and sources who are mistaken. If a powerful source uses a newspaper to circulate a lie, then it might be appropriate to expose the identity of the source. On the other hand, if the source was puffing his own importance or was otherwise mistaken about a key fact, the journalist should always honor the commitment to the source. It's extremely difficult to distinguish lie from mistake, so for as much I'd like to know who's spreading bad information through the press, I understand that journalists do have to protect their sources.
