-
The good news is that the other reporters didn't bite. The bad news is that none of them wrote or broadcast stories revealing what was going on. This could have been done without disclosing Wilson's wife's name or the source of the information, assuming the reporters had agreed to ground rules of confidentiality set by the source.
The Post, on principle, won't say whether any of its reporters were among those called. But Executive Editor Leonard Downie says The Post has "told readers everything we know" thus far.
The Justice Department will decide whether a crime has been committed by the leakers. But were the reporters who were called accomplices? No, although, again, they could have written or broadcast stories revealing what was happening. If reporters agree to protect the identity of a source they must do so, even if they don't use the information or if it turns out to be wrong. The press is not an arm of government, Downie said, and an agreement with a source is an obligation that is central to surfacing all kinds of wrongdoing. "One can imagine extreme circumstances where you could ask to be released, but if the source refuses you are bound by the agreement. It's a very important ethic of journalism," he said.
But, let me add, I really don't get this sentence. " If reporters agree to protect the identity of a source they must do so, even if they don't use the information or if it turns out to be wrong." This is bullshit. If a source lies to you (which is slightly different than 'turns out to be wrong') you should have an obligation to inform your readers. Period.