Reporters no longer ask for verification, thus they print charges no matter how outlandish they may seem, and once having done that, when the truth comes out, it's buried in the back page or never makes it on the air at all.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I know a lot of reporters certainly will go to jail to defend confidential sources. Some have even gone to jail for an issue like this. But I can't say that's the norm.
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical, that's what keeps them digging rather than simply accepting the official line, whether it comes from government or corporate bureaucrats.
Many a good newspaper story has been ruined by over verification.
I think the media are so hypocritical a lot of the time in the way they chastise something just so that they can print it again.
God, newspapers have been making up stories forever. This kind of trifling and fooling around is not a function of the New Journalism.
There is no higher claim to journalistic integrity than going to jail to protect a source.
Journalists, who are skeptical to begin with, simply do not like to be lied to or made fools of.
Print reporters have the opportunity to go so much more in depth in certain stories than television reporters do because they're working on stories for months at a time.
Every reporter inhales skepticism. You interview people, and they lie. You face public figures, diligently making notes or taping what is said, and they perform their interviews to fit a calculated script. The truth, alas, is always elusive.
There's no question that sources sometimes have interests aside from the truth when they talk to reporters. That's why reporters have to very aggressively report against their own theses and against their initial information.