Home | About | Donate

Should Media Expose Sources Who Lied to Them?


Should Media Expose Sources Who Lied to Them?

Sam Husseini

If an anonymous source knowingly and maliciously feeds a media outlet false information, should they continue to be granted anonymity? If media continue to protect the deceptive source’s identity, doesn’t that ensure the continuance of a disinformation conveyor belt?

On Monday, three CNN journalists resigned after an article alleging Trump associates’ ties to Russia was retracted by the network. Brian Stelter, CNN‘s media reporter (6/27/17), wrote:


Husseini makes this too complex. The purpose of journalism is to try to tell truth, given information that reporters can dig up. They should always protect honest sources from retaliation. They should never protect liars and correct false reports as soon as they find them to be wrong. Journalism is hard (and often risky) work, but ethics and moral standards are usually clear: tell what you see, find out, know to be true.


Funny he didn't mention Dan Rather that resigned for similar circumstances. These are experienced and celebrated journalists hard to believe they made this type of error.


► Yes, it's risky.

You either learn what to publish and what not, or you're outta there


"Unless outlets in the News Business would rather be in the Disinformation Business."

That why the Media was Deregulated, and allowed to be Bought Up, by Concerned Interests in the first place.


Eric Lichtblau may be experienced, but he was behind some of the worst reporting in 2016 at the New York Times. Many of his "sources" were clearly House Oversight and Government Reform Committee lackeys, maybe even Jason Chaffetz himself. The "clouds and shadows" Clinton email and foundation articles that always started with implicit guilt, even though they'd exonerate her in actual detail, were all his. His articles may not have been WMD level nonsense, but many were close.