The death of journalism began with the ubiquitous use of “Anonymous sources claim…”

How many partisan hatchet jobs began using that old technique and called it journalism? All ya gotta do is just make up some crazy bullshit lie and attribute it to an alleged “anonymous source close to….insert victims name here.”

“Anonymous sources close to the Clinton Administration claim to have personally witnessed President Clinton beating Vince Foster to death with a hammer and then rolling his dead body up in a carpet. We’ll have more on this breaking story as it develops.”

This kind of “journalism” has been going on for years and no one has ever called any of these people on it.

No wonder Joe seems shocked that he’s getting called out. It’s just business as usual for journalists to make stuff up, attribute it to an alleged “source” and then rattle off whatever character assassination they want.

“Anonymous sources deep within the Democratic party are reporting that the Dems plan on personally hand over 16 nuclear warheads to Osama bin laden as well as one trillion in cash. We’ll have more on this story as it develops.”

It’s all so easy to just lie, lie, lie and get away with it.

If some really calls you on it all you have to do is print a small retraction on the back page SIX MONTHS LATER or just shrug your shoulders and claim that you haven’t “finished verifying” your sources claims.

I applaud Glenn, but it won’t do any good. This isn’t about one reporter or one editor or one magazine. The whole system is corrupt from top to bottom.

Make it illegal to attribute anything to an anonymous source and suddenly all these problems go away.

We should all take Mr. Greenwald's article with a grain fo salt.

Sources close to Mr. Greenwald's office have claimed that the FBI is investigating his links to organized crime and his name has been linked to a bribery scandal involving many top level Democrats.

Exactly how many Dems Mr. Greenwald has allegedly bribed and the exact amount he paid them remains to be seen.

How do I know all this?

Uh, it was from an anonymous source! I swear!

Make anonymous sources illegal except in extreme cirumstances.

Otherwise "journalists" will just keep cranking out made up stories and attributing them to "anonymous sources."

Anonymous speech and sourcing is essential to democracy. It should always be legally protected.

If I simply stated in print that I thought Glenn Greenwald was a child molester -- I'd be guilty of libel, wouldn't I?

How do I legally get around that?

Simply attribute that claim to a made-up (as in totally fictional!) "anonymous source".

The problem here is you guys really seems to think there actually are anonymous sources and the Editors have personally spoken to these sources and verified their claims!

Journalists are just making shit up and attributing it to sources that do not exist and never have.

How do I know? I have a highly placed anonymous source working at the Times.

Question: Do the Editors actually speak to these alleged sources to verify that a) they were contacted by the reporter writing the story and b) that the statements being attributed to them are indeed what they said?

Answer: no.

Remember Stephen Glass? This joker made up entire stories! Nothing was true! He invented conferences that never occured and people that didn't exist!

All he had to do was make-up notes, hand them over to an Editor who never verified any of it and sit down to write his fictional stories.

All the defenders of the anonymous sources are assuming, incorrectly, that the statement attributed to these sources are verified as correct by the Editors prior to publication.

They are not.

I agree that we need to hold publications and people legally responsible for misinformation.

If Joe writes something that isn't true -- there should be legal consequences.

Currently journalists can make up whatever they want, tell whatever lies they want to further their political agendas and there are zero consequences.

Well, except for all the dead soliders in Iraq.

THOSE guys paid for all the "facts" lying journalists printed in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq.

Without changing the "anonymous source" system -- what's to stop this eact same scenario from happening again and again?