TAPPED says I think Liberto's email is sleazy. Actually, I posted it without comment. Not being a journalist I'm not entirely sure what the ethics of such things are. I'm not surprised that journalists butter up their (potential) sources and don't stop short of misleading them somewhat. However, what is sleazy is the degree to which (inside knowledge here) some of those sources' comments were ignored to spin the story she wanted to tell. In addition, I have been told that she had promised not to reveal a certain name that was printed in the article. That I assume is sleazy. Actually, I found the email rather juvenile and silly, and it was quite obvious to the sources I have communicated with that alarm bells went off when they received it. A bit too cutesy.
Sleazy by itself? Perhaps not. But, that isn't the end of this story...
UPDATE: I just wanted to add that I doubt that Liberto's reporting was any more sleazy than, say, Richard Berke's 300th story about how the only person in the country who actually likes Al Gore is a criminally insane serial rapist currently in restraints in an asylum. But, hey, to paraphrase Layne or Welch or whoever it was, this is 2002 and we can fact-check yer ass and your motives.
