Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

If the anonymous source in question gave good information but the journalist wrote a bad article or reached the wrong conclusions, then that source should absolutely still be protected.

Obviously I am arguing under the assumption that everything done here was in good faith. That there was a source and that he/she didn’t feed Ms. Locy bad information. Which is admittedly a stretch. But when discussing ethics, we can’t just use bad apples as an excuse to throw out the entire kit and kaboodle. The protection of sources is of the utmost importance to journalism.

And I stand by that journalism is more important than the reputation of one man. Journalism has the power to save lives and to bring governments down to its knees. There’s a reason one of the first freedoms to go out the door in repressive societies is the press.

Obviously Rusty’s value system is quite the opposite of God who created man in His own image. Someday Rusty will realize what he has squandered, but alas it might be too late then.

Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar & Steven Hatfill…

George W. Bush Administration: 0 for 3.

Yeah, we haven’t gotten any bad guys have we?

troll feeding over.

My congratulations. I never thought I would see the day when the names “Deep Throat” and “Larry Flynt” could be used in the same sentence in a clean context.

LOL

What a great observation!

George W. Bush Administration: 0 for 3.

My congratulations. I never thought I would see the day when the names “Deep Throat” and “Larry Flynt” could be used in the same sentence in a clean context.

Journalism was a much more honorable profession back then. Today the pendulum has swung way to far in the presses favor.

We can’t bring back the duel, but we can come close. A reporter who refuses in court to identify a source, should at a minimum be found in Contempt of Court and receive a lifetime ban on employment in the press. Fines should be assessed for continued refusal along with jail time.

But right now there is no legal distinction between good and bad information. And until that distinction is met, it is unethical to reveal sources.

We need a law saying that if an anonymous source spreads good information (like Deep Throat or whoever sent that FBI tape to Larry Flynt), then he/she’ll be protected.

If only…if only…we had a…Ministry of Information to prescreen every piece of journalism to determine if the content were good or bad . Yeah, a Ministry of Information. That’s the ticket.

The Ministry could even stamp each piece with an emoticon to indicate the grade.

I think our point of contention is that I don’t think we really need to wait for a new law before a journalist steps up and reveals a source of bad information.

In fact, I believe that would do exactly what you suggest: sources would make damned sure thay were correct before stepping forward themselves.

Sounds like you and I are on the same page, I just think in this case there is no one good to protect. There is no law, therefore, preventing the journalist from talking. Also, I doubt future legit whistleblowers would be all that deterred if this journalist did the right thing here.