The controversy started with a quickly discredited Jan. 17 article on the Insight Web site asserting that the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was preparing an accusation that her rival, Senator Barack Obama, had covered up a brief period he had spent in an Islamic religious school in Indonesia when he was 6.
(Other news organizations have confirmed Mr. Obama’s descriptions of the school as a secular public school. Both senators have denounced the report, and there is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign planned to spread those accusations.)
To most journalists, the notion of anonymous reporters relying on anonymous sources is a red flag. "If you want to talk about a business model that is designed to manufacture mischief in large volume, that would be it," said Ralph Whitehead Jr., a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts.
I hope other 'reputable' news organizations begin to get it as well. For too long anything one of these idiots pulled out of their ass was treated as substantiated fact, picked up and spread all over the place.
The Times especially has been used as a tool of the Bush administration in their run up to the war in Iraq. If they want their reputation as the 'paper of record' restored, extra diligence on their part is required.
The American public gets it. 31% of them get their news from the Internet and blogs and I'm sure the subscription department is feeling the heat, judging from the amount of commercials imploring you subscribe. Maybe more articles like this will restore the public's faith they are telling the truth.
Well, maybe not.