Newsweek had a source that said he saw the allegation of Koran flushing in the SouthCom report on Gitmo. He either lied or he was wrong. He should be exposed and his name should be public. I've long wanted to write a diary on what I call the "Anonymous Source Contract". I once had an exchange with the WashPost ombudsman about it--and he couldn't understand the concept. There is a principle behind anonymous sources. Let me explain, and I will try to keep it simple. The public understands the concept...but 99% of "journalists" do not.
Anonymous sources are a contract between the source and the reporter. The source agrees to give true and factual information he obtained through his privileged access and placement. The reporter agrees to keep the source anonymous at all costs. As in all contracts, both factors must exist. For example, I sell you a painting that I assure you is a Picasso. You write me a check for the sales amount. We have a contract. You then discover the painting is a forgery, and a bad one at that. You call the bank and cancel the check. You are not under a moral obligation to honor your end of the deal. No one, to include lawyers, constitutional scholars, and journalists, would think you need to honor your check. Stay with me now, because apparently this is tricky. A source offers Nesweek privileged information about SouthCom's classified report on interrogations at Gitmo. The information is offered on condition that the reporter keep the source's name (and agenda) hidden. A contract, clear and simple, and journalists and the informed public both agree it should be honored. But now it appears that the source has lied about the SouthCom report. He never actually saw it there, although he may have heard it whispered in the men's room or read it "somewhere". There is no contract. There is no true and factual information. There is no longer a promise of anonymity. The sources name and agenda should promptly be revealed. The public understands this and is usually angry when stories based on "anonymous sources" turn out to be fictional and agenda driven. Journalists, for some reason, completely fail to understand this rather simple point. I don't know why I chose to write on this Newsweek story--papers and magazines are full of garbage anonymous source quotes.
I would love for one, just one baby, journalist to expose an anonymous source because the information was bad. Remember, the anonymous source contracts requires true and privileged information from the source in return for anonymity. Expose the sources and their agendas. It would be great journalism, revolutionary in fact. I won't hold my breath.