supposing he or she did... it would be an interesting problem in
journalistic ethics if the source had been promised anonymity. I think
they would probably stand by the anonymity and do a story about
how/why the information was accepted as correct that does not reveal
the source. If that were possible.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: The Sam Factor! (Fox News can legally lie?)
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- "S. Isaac Dealey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's the point! If someone gave them bogus
> > information and they stood behind it wouldn't it
> clear
> > them if they gave the source? Why protect someone
> that
> > duped them anyway?
>
> Because letting people know the source will give him
> a reputation for
> revealing sources and likely result in not getting
> new sources in the
> future.
Not if the source pulled a fast one. They should send
the message that if you make stuff up that will ruin
their reputation they'll expose you. Why protect them?
-sm
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
