Look, obviously that was - created quite a firestorm, but Newsweek editors have made clear that this was a situation where, you know, a solid, well-placed source provided some information.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
If information is true, if it can be verified, and if it's really important, the newspaper needs to be willing to take the risk associated with using unidentified sources.
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.
I would like to know that when I read the paper in the morning, it's telling me something that actually happened, and I think the vast majority of journalists want the same thing.
As any editor will tell you, startling newsroom revelations are generally met with queries about where the information came from and how the reporter got it. Seriously startling revelations are followed by the vetting of libel lawyers.
Some people are probably scratching their heads and saying, How did that happen? That's because some of the media didn't give the public the full story.
It's nice to know about something as soon as it happens, and obviously a newspaper can't provide that.
Inventing sources is not a crime in and of itself, although it certainly violates every code of journalistic ethics known to man. A criminal fraud case would require that the reporter's deceit had been malicious and resulted in financial gain.
I thought I might say something to newsmen that could be turned into a scandal.
I can't think of an instance at MSNBC where anything I said on the air was influenced by what was going on behind the scenes.
You know, I was at CBS News for 28 years. I may have run an unidentified source. Frankly, I don't remember.
No opposing quotes found.