Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Herschel Smith: "It’s about honor. People who demand to know sources don’t understand honor."

You know, people who demand to know sources are idiots. What do they think – that journalists and bloggers are going to give up people who entrusted themselves to give needful reports? I always protected my sources. I expect David and Mike to do the same thing. I would lose respect for them if they didn’t. It’s about more than just expediency. It’s about honor. People who demand to know sources don’t understand honor.


Anonymous said...

Just do what the "freest, most democratic" Gov't in the world does - say it's a matter of national Security and tell anyone that still has questions to go fu&%-off.

Anonymous said...

When a person writes using a anonymous source they themselves BECOME the source. I can understand folks who are tired of endless press quoting "an official close to the investigation said". The problem is that celebrity culture has turned on a dime - folks used to care about WHAT was said but now the supposed key is WHO said it. Why? Well because the politics of personal destruction only works when there is a person identified to destroy!!

Reject the temptation of identity politics. Reject attacking covert sources AND anonymous postings. Attack the SUBSTANCE itself. Addres the CONTENT directly. That's takes honor and courage. Identity politics is the opposite.

Jimmy the Saint said...

It's always been a balancing act, though. One the one hand, protecting sources encourages disclosures from people who might well otherwise say nothing. However, allowing journalists to protect the identity of their sources allows for "Informed sources say so-and-so is a paedophile" and all other manner of slander/libel. It also makes it hard for the public to judge credibility. Does "a source close to the White House" mean the White House Chief of Staff, or a homeless guy standing outside the gate?