Letter to Washington Post ombudsman (Media Matters)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Reporters might protest that a policy of "outing" dishonest sources would make others less likely to talk in the future. But are your readers' interests best served by the reporter-source relationship as it exists now? If this incident is any indication, the answer seems to be no. The "senior Bush official" will suffer no consequences and will be free to spin, smear, and lie again in the pages of the Post or other news outlets -- all without revealing his or her identity.

What, precisely, is the Post's policy on anonymous sources who abuse the protection offered by your newspaper's reporters? Does a policy even exist? If not, we would encourage you to create one. After all, sources are not the only ones who need protection; the Post's readers do as well.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509060009


Seems like a constructive conversation to me. One way though it may be.

[glitch]

1. Excellent! And obviously, duh. Hope they respond. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. I think the likelihood of a response is minimal.

How does one answer the unanswerable?