This is how virtually all meaningful journalism works -- politicians confide in someone that they think will keep it a secret, and then that person goes and tells a journalist, who reports it.

This is just wrong -- meaningful journalism means a hell of a lot more than just blockbuster exposes. If you are a journalist on a particular beat, you typically have to interview the same people over and over again. A great deal of meaningful journalism comes from reporting what politicians say on the record. For every Nixon, there are a dozen George Allens, who are publicly hoisted on their own petards.

And that's the key -- if you establish some level of rapport, you can publish all sorts of revealing (intentionally and otherwise) statements, on the record, and come back the next week for another interview. If you go with gotcha, your source is spoiled forever. In the case of Woodward and Bernstein, the public interest was undoubtedly served. But if your "gotcha" revelation is merely titillation, as with the case here, then you've spoiled a source for nothing, and thus reduced your future ability to perform the functions of the Fourth Estate.

If you're a journalist and a source comes to you and tells you what a politician said in private (assuming it's of relevance to a matter of public interest), is it unethical for you to report that statement which the politician thought was in being made in private (because the source never warned him that he'd leak it)?

OF COURSE NOT. Nobody would ever say it was unethical for the journalist to disclose such information.

By what possible logic, then, could it be unethical for the source simply to publish it himself????

I agree with you. Your caveat about relevance is actually the crux of our disagreement regarding this particular incident. You can publish just about anything you want, but that doesn't make you a journalist. I don't believe what Mayhill Fowler did was journalism, because I fail to see the relevance to public interest in her revelation. Vanity Fair published a hit piece, and Clinton is angry about it. So what? Alter overreacted, but in doing so defended a basic journalistic precept that you summarily dismiss. Well, I don't think it should be dismissed, and I've tried to explain why. I'm not going to answer any more hypotheticals in the attempt, sorry.

I believe in citizen journalism, when I see it happen. I believe in the societal value of agents provocateurs, when they expose something important. I just don't blindly equate the two.

They say there's no such thing as a perfect analogy, and I think you just proved it. A better one might be if I were to throw a ball against the side of my house and catch it, and tell everyone that it was baseball.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting while the rest of us bloviate.

Boston fans are insufferable...

Will Mel_Odius ever find true love? And, if so, will it be soon?

would be Favre reprising Chris Kattan's role as Mango.

...Studs Terkel. A fine story about one of our greatest story-tellers. Here's hoping he lives to see an Obama victory, and that the victor is worthy of old Studs.

his reeking ashes should be scattered over Stone Mountain, georgia

Stone Mountain, Georgia is a predominantly black community that was until recently was represented in Congress by Cynthia McKinney, the person least like Jesse Helms in all of human history. You'd have to work pretty hard to find a less-receptive "ideological homeland" for Helms' ashes.

include the implications that Tupac Shakur's murder was engineered by some combination of shadowy government forces, and that the CIA introduced crack cocaine to black neighborhoods. So there's that.

Oh yeah, almost forgot. She also believes that AIPAC was responsible for her loss to Denise Majette -- a liberal, black woman who beat her by 16 points...

I'll join in the superlatives parade and say that, while his boosterism can irritate, there's no greater advocate for his/her sport than John McEnroe. Maybe he's just raging against the dying of the light, but his determination to serve the sport that made him rich and famous is admirable. Contrast that with the quick fade pulled by so many other popular tennis stars upon retirement, and old Mac is left to pull a lot of weight.

While he had never stopped playing, Julio had had only one major league AB in just short of four MLB seasons when the Braves signed him in 2001, whereupon he proceeded to hit .300 at age 42 (and continued on from there). Nobody ever said Julio wasn't amazing -- I just wanted to bring him up in the context of batters who'd missed a lot of time against MLB pitching.

would you mind telling your readers what's so dumb about having the All-Star game decide home field for the World Series.

"Now pitching, JD Drew" doesn't answer that question?

Seriously, why should (for instance) the Chicago Cubs pay a competitive price for Dan Uggla having a bad exhibition game?

The needs of the planet trump my cynicism about this particular messenger. Of course he's in it for the money -- he's said so. That doesn't change the fact that he's right on this one, and he's uniquely capable of making it happen.

I'm eagerly anticipating Betty's rebellion in season two. Goodbye Grace Kelly, hello Catherine Deneuve!