If a reporter’s “confidential” source provides false information, clearly false information which later events show to have been politically motivated and design to move forward a dangerous agenda, does that source still have the right to expect that his or her name will not be revealed? And what are we to make of news organizations which continue to protect such scoundrels and liars?
Glenn Greenwald has some thoughts about that which are definitely worth reading.
Also, what do we make of a news organization which promotes a guy like this to head its Washington News Bureau even after his predecessor went on record with concerns about the appointment; there are revelations that he was a good enough pal to email Karl Rove in 2004 urging him to “keep up the fight” when the truth started coming up about the government lies surrounding the death of Pat Tillman , and there was a recent revelation that he was offered a job in the McCain Campaign in 2007?
“Accountability,” “conflict of interest” and “public trust” are not exactly matters that the press is all about these days, are they? Certainly not in those press organizations whose name begins with the letter “A.“
Once upon a time, the press was seen as the safeguard between the people and the government, a stalwart sentinel for insuring the truth would come out. In this era of Fox, Drudge and Rush, sleeping with the enemy is clearly the new standard.
