Ethics: Breaking A Confidence
(2 of 2)
But the widespread practice of granting sources anonymity has dangers of its own. It allows officials to manipulate the press without being held accountable. North's charge that Congress was responsible for leaks about the Libyan raid and the Achille Lauro had serious policy implications. It was also wrong; most stories about both events, including TIME's cover just before the Libyan raid, were based on Administration sources. Says Michael Gartner, editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal: "In this instance, where the source publicly accuses someone else of leaking a story for devious purposes, it's incumbent upon you to set the record straight."
Everette Dennis, executive director of New York's Gannett Center for Media Studies, agrees. "The standard ought always to be the public interest," he says. Yes, but the question is whether breaking the rules of confidentiality is the best way to achieve that standard.
- « PREV PAGE
- 1
- 2
Most Popular »
- Obama's Half Brother Makes a Name for Himself in China
- Five Things the U.S. Can Learn from China
- China Investigates Deaths After Swine Flu Shot
- Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?
- Spanish Outraged by Teen Masturbation Workshops
- The Vanished Army: Solving an Ancient Egyptian Mystery
- The Meaning and Mythos of Manny Pacquiao
- Good and Bad News for Boxing: Only One Pacquiao
- Why Does the U.S. Want to Seize Mosques?
- Australia Apologizes to Abused Child Migrants
- Five Things the U.S. Can Learn from China
- China Investigates Deaths After Swine Flu Shot
- Happiness Paradox: Why Are Americans So Cheery?
- The Fort Hood Killer: Terrified ... or Terrorist?
- The Vanished Army: Solving an Ancient Egyptian Mystery
- GM: $1.2B Loss; Says It Shows Progress
- Business & Finance: Hobby Factory
- Obama's Half Brother Makes a Name for Himself in China
- Good and Bad News for Boxing: Only One Pacquiao
- Business: Big Pool Punned







RSS