NEWSWEEK HAS GONE INTO PROTECTION mode today, selling their situation as a "standing up" to an oppressive White House. As Michelle Malkin points out, the grandstanding just inflames the situation unnecessarily.
The magazine still doesn't seem to understand that such self-aggrandizing hype is simply more fuel on the Islamists' fire.
Austin Bay believes the source of the story to be a faceless bureaucrat somewhere in D.C. looking for career advancement, and Drudge is reporting that White House staffers are pointing the finger at congress.
Newsweek could end the speculation today by simply revealing their source. Their protectionism is woefully misplaced. In fact, the term "source" doesn't even really apply here. A source is a person who provides accurate information. In this case, Newsweek's source did nothing of the sort. Given the ultimate inaccuracy of the information, they have no moral or ethical duty to protect the identity.
Yes, Newsweek got burned by bad information compounded by journalistic laziness. Perhaps there was even a dose of "gotcha" mixed in. 17 people died as a result and over a hundred were injured. Why do they now make it worse by protecting a person unworthy of such loyalty?
Generally, the reasoning for protecting a source is a sense of security for all future sources who may not be inclined to come forward if they run the risk of exposure. In this case however, Newsweek could send a powerful message that if a source wants their identity protected, they had better be reliable.
A source who lies has no expectation of protection. A publication that protects that "source" has no expectation of reliability. Time will tell which is more important to Newsweek; an unreliable source, or their own reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment