But I know newspapers. They have the first amendment and they can tell any lie knowing it's a lie and they're protected if the person's famous or it's a company.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Newspapers that are truly independent, like The Washington Post, can still aggressively investigate anyone or anything with no holds barred.
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.
One of the reasons why I think people have gone from reading mainstream newspapers to the Internet is because they realize they're being lied to.
Virtually every magazine, newspaper, TV station and cable channel is owned by a big corporation, and they've squashed stories that they don't want the public to know about.
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.
As to the media, they are protected by the First Amendment, as they should be.
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.
I'm not sure a lot of companies know their story, or can explain why they exist and who they are, without just spewing just corporate speech.
When you have mass surveillance, it's impossible to meet the intent of the First Amendment because reporters can't talk to sources because sources are afraid to talk.
There is no higher claim to journalistic integrity than going to jail to protect a source.
No opposing quotes found.