WP Journalists: Identify Your Source

[rucky]

Do it anonymously if you have to. Give the information to the Times and lose out on a scoop. You have to make good on the damage you've caused and the lives you've put in danger. Burning sources is not an ironclad rule in journalism - you only do it when you absolutely have to, and this is such an occasion. Novak & the Post need to answer some questions. They didn't seem to be worried about ethics and their reputation when they printed the story. Just because you get juicy information from a source doesn't mean you have to print the story, and Novak's should have been spiked by the legal department. They screwed up and knowingly put people's lives in danger. Now they should give up their source to make good on the damage that they've caused. If you want to do that and save face, then here's your chance - scoop the Times if you have to. Do it anonymously if you have to. Just do it NOW.

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. A good reporter NEVER reveals sources.

Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, class of 1971 here.

[RobertSeattle]

3. Isn't the exception if the source permits it?

So Bush should tell his staff to contact their press contacts and permit them to name sources. "Case Closed".

[greatauntoftriplets]

6. Bush will never tell his staff to permit them to name sources.

They are trying to cover up whatever happened.

[HereSince1628]

4. But a good journalist can prove that they are real.

A statement from the editors at WP that all the information has sufficient verification would push the cause...that is it would help get an independent investigation.

BTW, Go Cubs!

[rucky]

8. There are legal and ethical limits

Drop your j-school dogma for a second and look at the implications here.

A crime was committed by the post. The story ran and that's how the information became public. I was a journalist for 8 years and we've spiked MANY stories because of the legal and ethical implications that it would bring to the media outlet itself. The post is the story now, and if they are not already, they will and should very soon be part of the focus on this investigation.

[pruner]

2. Novak doesn't write for the Post

his column is syndicated and the Post is just one of many papers that carry it.

[MoonAndSun]

5. No matter how repellant some of the Washington reporters are,

freedom of the press is paramount. They must be able to use these anonymous sources, even if the stories are lies. The truth will always come out eventually. (Yes, I am a bit naive)

[ShaneGR]

7. WOODWORD: Tell us who Deepthroat was already!

It's been 30 years!


A good reporter would NEVER give up a source. Ever.

[Junkdrawer]

9. Looks like they're talking privately now...

"Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.'"
...

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

There are at least six journalists who have the story. Can you say "first to spill the beans gets the book..."