Would you give up your source if...

[Jim Tom Pinch]

The Boston Herald and reporter John Tomase "broke" the story that Matt Walsh had video of the Rams walk through before the Super Bowl.

Of course it has now come out that Walsh didn't have that and the Herald and Tomase are coming under fire for it. I doubt that Patriots will sue the Herald, but the rumor is out there.

It's standard practice to protect a confidential source, but does that change if your source was wrong?

Does it change if in hindsight you think your source was knowingly wrong and tried to plant bad info?

 

[RedSmithClone]

Was the source wrong?

Is someone now deciding to hide something?

I know those self-righteous Patriots fanatics will be out to get John and the Herald, but why just because nothing came of the Walsh-NFL meeting should we simply assume the things in the original story never happened?

 

[SCEditor]

If a source lies to you on purpose, then I'd out the source in a heartbeat. In my book and I've told sources this before, being an anonymous source is contingent on the information being truthful. If it's not, I'm throwing the liar under the bus.

 

[forever_town]

If a source lies to you on purpose, then I'd out the source in a heartbeat. In my book and I've told sources this before, being an anonymous source is contingent on the information being truthful. If it's not, I'm throwing the liar under the bus.

QFT.

 

[Starman]

The Boston Herald and reporter John Tomase "broke" the story that Matt Walsh had video of the Rams walk through before the Super Bowl.

Of course it has now come out that Walsh didn't have that and the Herald and Tomase are coming under fire for it. I doubt that Patriots will sue the Herald, but the rumor is out there.

It's standard practice to protect a confidential source, but does that change if your source was wrong?

Does it change if in hindsight you think your source was knowingly wrong and tried to plant bad info?

If evidence comes out which pretty conclusively PROVES your source was knowingly wrong and tried to plant bad info, then hell yes. Burn him.

A lot of people go berzerk when I say this, "OMFG, you can never ever ever ever give up a source, if you do nobody will ever trust you again," etc etc etc.

No, you tell sources, "if you're giving me the straight ****, I'll take it with me to the grave, but if you're feeding me a steaming plate of horse fudge, somebody's going to go down, and it ain't going to be me."

 

[Jim Tom Pinch]

Was the source wrong?

Is someone now deciding to hide something?

I know those self-righteous Patriots fanatics will be out to get John and the Herald, but why just because nothing came of the Walsh-NFL meeting should we simply assume the things in the original story never happened?

I'm not assuming it didn't happen. I'm just using the example for its ethical debate value.

 

[huntsie]

If the guy lies to advance his own agenda, by all means, I'd give him up in a heartbeat. And I'd do a story spelling out why he did what he did too.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

But if Tomase give up Bill Polian - he'll never have access to the Colts again.

 

[Boobie Miles]

Was the source wrong?

Is someone now deciding to hide something?

I know those self-righteous Patriots fanatics will be out to get John and the Herald, but why just because nothing came of the Walsh-NFL meeting should we simply assume the things in the original story never happened?

My thoughts exactly. Tomase never named the source and Walsh's lawyer said Walsh wasn't the source. Why would it necessarily end with Walsh? I think the thing is overblown, but I just don't see why Walsh is considered the end all and be all in this.

To further JTP's desire to get some discussion going on ethics and that, what exactly could the Patriots sue the Herald for? I know all the fanboys are going crazy saying the Pats should sue the pants off the Herald, but I'm genuinely wondering what basis they would have for suing?

 

[SCEditor]

If a source lies to you on purpose, then I'd out the source in a heartbeat. In my book and I've told sources this before, being an anonymous source is contingent on the information being truthful. If it's not, I'm throwing the liar under the bus.

QFT.

I just had to google what QFT meant. Learn something new every day.

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

If a source lies to you on purpose, then I'd out the source in a heartbeat. In my book and I've told sources this before, being an anonymous source is contingent on the information being truthful. If it's not, I'm throwing the liar under the bus.

QFT.

I just had to google what QFT meant. Learn something new every day.

I had to think about it for a second -- Quoted for Truth?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I think it's insane to publish a big story like that based on just one source, a source who wouldn't stand behind it to begin with. So whether the source lied or was just misinformed, the fault lies with the editor who approved running the story without getting the reporter to get a second source to confirm. The paper should take its lumps and not reveal the source.

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

Was the source wrong?

Is someone now deciding to hide something?

I know those self-righteous Patriots fanatics will be out to get John and the Herald, but why just because nothing came of the Walsh-NFL meeting should we simply assume the things in the original story never happened?

My thoughts exactly. Tomase never named the source and Walsh's lawyer said Walsh wasn't the source. Why would it necessarily end with Walsh? I think the thing is overblown, but I just don't see why Walsh is considered the end all and be all in this.

To further JTP's desire to get some discussion going on ethics and that, what exactly could the Patriots sue the Herald for? I know all the fanboys are going crazy saying the Pats should sue the pants off the Herald, but I'm genuinely wondering what basis they would have for suing?

As has been written in many other places, the whole "Patriots should sue the Herald" is much ado about nothing. The Pats have to prove that the Herald knowingly printed false information, which would be absolutely impossible.

Not only that, but a lawsuit brings up the possibility that other shenanigans could come to light. The Pats will be smart and just leave this one alone.

 

[Oz]

Herald didn't out a source, but it did apologize with today's papers ...

 

[alleyallen]

If a source lies to you on purpose, then I'd out the source in a heartbeat. In my book and I've told sources this before, being an anonymous source is contingent on the information being truthful. If it's not, I'm throwing the liar under the bus.

QFT.

I just had to google what QFT meant. Learn something new every day.

Quality Friend Time? Quantum Field Theory? Quit Freaking Talking? Quiet F-ing Toejam?

 

[shockey]

I think it's insane to publish a big story like that based on just one source, a source who wouldn't stand behind it to begin with. So whether the source lied or was just misinformed, the fault lies with the editor who approved running the story without getting the reporter to get a second source to confirm. The paper should take its lumps and not reveal the source.

bingo! we have the winner! you never out a source if only because you'll ruin any chance of acquiring other sources. the source effed you with bad info? shame on you for running with a one-source story. which is why "unnamed source" stories help kill credibility in the biz. you run a one-source story, you're asking to be burned. any way you slice it, shame on tomase and the herald editors. the eds pressured him to run it? simple. you say, "take my name off it."

not that complicated, imo. i don't know john from adam. from all reports he's a good guy and a solid reporter. but if i'm running that show, for everyone's sake -- including his -- i take him off the beat, like, yesterday. that's the price you pay.

 

[RedSmithClone]

He is one of the best reporters I have ever worked with. And I think you may be dead on about the editors forcing the story through. He's too responsible a journalist to go with something like this unless he was 100 percent sure what he was writing was acurate.

I agree they should probably switch his beat. I think firing him is too much. But if the paper needs a scapegoat it's easier to go with the man or woman who has the byline than an unknown editor.