Monday, June 26, 2006


Well, apparently sources can hand over horseshit to willing stenographers and those stenographers don't think there's any need for consequences. This of course lets journalists be simple information launderers for those who wish to libel others. Gilliard:

I have just received an e-mail from TNR editor Frank Foer which said they thought the apology is adequate and "they had nothing more to add". It was bad enough they tacked on Gilliard-gate to their mistake on their reporting. But now, they're defending a dishonest source, who sends e-mails withour any proof of their accuracyMy question is simple: why are they protecting a dishonest source on a story? They know the person in question lied to them about my words, yet they continue to protect them. Why would they do this? Apology or not, this is about credibility and their lack of it. How can anyone trust Jason Zengerle's words again? If they were to face legal action in the future, from an issue unrelated to this, counsel would surely contact me about this matter, as well as use it against them. This isn't about me, except for those words. It is, however, about how badly and dishonestly this whole affair has been handled. It was sloppy, an embarassment and TNR cannot wish it away. Until they deal with this in a forthright manner, their critics will always say "how can you trust them, they posted that fake e-mail", regardless of the facts of the story.

Burning sources who mislead you just seems like a nobrainer to me. Aside from punshing someone who aided and abetted your screwup, it also sends a signal to other would-be bullshitters that their attempts may not be consequence free.

Nice little racket they've got.