Yesterday, Keith Kelly used his Media Ink column in the New York Post to comment on a Daily Caller story that wasn't, which accused The New Yorker's Jane Mayer of plagiarism. Questions remain, of course, about who was accusing Mayer and, therefore, supplying the reporter with the "story," and Kelly's piece quotes DC editor Tucker Carlson saying the following: "I have no clue where we got it. I never ask the reporters where they get stuff, only whether it's true. In this case, we didn't have enough."
In most cases of using confidential sources, at least one editor knows who the reporter's source is. There's a reason for this: Sources don't always have the best of intentions when making claims they don't want to attach their name to, and leaving what is basically a judgment call up to one person is iffy at best. Not knowing is tantamount to not wanting to know, and if I were an editor working on a story with anonymous sources, I would want to know. It's one of the key pieces an editor needs in ensuring the story is solid.
But this, as with the Andrew Breitbart attack on Shirley Sherrod, isn't real journalism. Since journalists have a lot of power, they also all have an obligation to do their due diligence. An editor not knowing a source or making sure he's watching a full video in context is like shutting your eyes, crossing your fingers, and hoping a story is true. Carlson and DC were right not to publish a less-than-solid story. But it troubles me to know that Carlson doesn't insist on knowing who his reporters' sources are.
-- Monica Potts
