Unless I somehow missed it, there was no real examination of what happens when a source misleads you in the Citizen Media Law Project readings we were assigned. I bring this up because in that whole Deadspin/ESPN saga, Gawker Media (which owns Deadspin) honcho Nick Denton had this to say: “When an unnamed source misleads, as far as we’re concerned, they lose the right to remain in the shadows.”
What do you guys this of this stance? I think there is actually some validity, if the source knowingly misleads. But it's a slippery slope, and if you've promised a source confidentiality, as our reading points out, you could be sued if you violate that agreement, no matter the reason.
NB C-notes
14 years ago
1 comment:
Sources tell us the truth.
Our job is accuracy - to report what the say (or what we find on documents) in an accurate manner.
I'd have few problems burning a source who lied to me or fabricated some sort of proof.
Of course, once you agree that there is a scenario when you'd burn a source the genie is out of the barn (to mix cliches - there's no getting the genie back in the barn).
What about your relationship with other sources.
Could this disintegrate into giving up sources when you're merely angry for some non honesty related issue?
Hope not.
Post a Comment