Ethical quandary @ WaPo: Story spiked

Not only will the WashPo continue to use unnamed sources for political stories, they will continue to use sources who give them bogus information and allow them to continue to be an unnamed source.

 

But not on serious stuff like picking up chicks, though.

 

All one and the same, really.

 

Ira, you missed my point.
Of course the name thing should've been ironed out.
But I'm guessing the editor didnt know about it from the beginning.
Therefore he's not at fault. The reporter is.

 

Yo, silentbob -- let's not muddy the waters here. There's no Stephen Glass parallel. The editors know who the guy is, they know he exists, the issue is putting his name in the newspaper. The only reason I can see for doing that is to "punish" him for running such a reprehensible seminar.
As a long time beat writer, I just love all the tsk tsking of anonymity ... whenever I see one of those posts, I know I'm reading a desk guy/gal, who has never had to compete for information. In this decade, anyhow.

 

Just going to interject my opinion that the WaPost is slowly turning into a POS rag.

It isn't there yet, but, damn, has my estimation of that paper fallen over the past few years.

 

If possible, sell to a mag that will run the story without a real name. The name does nothing for the readers. It's the information that's important.

 

or all those quotes from "senior administration officials" that just happen to be Dick Cheney.

 

In his online chat, Weingarten (properly) said the story was the property of the Washington Post, not him.

 

Absolutely. "The Great Zucchini" was riveting.

 

I'd just like to pipe in and ask that you google weingarten and Joshua bell and set aside an hour to read what should be a Pulitzer finalist.