Via County Fair, Howard Kurtz channels his inner Bill Clinton. After criticism that The Washington Post's "media critic" violated the paper's own rules on anonymous sourcing by allowing an unnamed FOX employee to take a shot at Jon Stewart, Kurtz fires back that it depends on the definition of "source" doesn't it?
Howard Kurtz insists he didn't violate that policy because he let an unnamed network spokesman -- not a source -- attack Jon Stewart. "That, in my book, is different than just quoting some random person who is speaking for himself or herself," he says in the second chat Q-and-A.
A source is anyone (or thing) that gives you information relating to a story. If it gives you information, it's a source; any sophomore who writes for a high school paper can tell you that. I could hardly imagine Kurtz accepting this explanation from a reporter he was covering.
--A. Serwer
