First of all, all good journalists are skeptical and cynical by nature. I haven't been a reporter in a while (so I might not be up on current ethics), but on an important story, one source is rarely enough for the same information. If you will read All the President's Men, you will see that the investigative team is always looking for another source to confirm each piece of information.

Well that's true, but it doesn't really answer my question. Two Bush aides can lie to a reporter too. Some stories can't really have multiple independent sources since a leak from say, a presidential campaign can only come from campaign insiders who cannot really be considered independent of one another. They can easily collude to have several people telling the same lies.

Again, if, after agreeing to anonymity to sources, interviewing carefully, seeing the stories line up, and publishing it: you discover proof that they knew what they told you was false, why do you still feel required to maintain their anonymity? So they can lie to other reporters? Lying public officials is news and in the public interest to report. By concealing the name of a known liar in government, you are actually an accomplice to the deceit.

At the very least, you should print a story where you relay what happened when you confronted them, and promise to never trust these particular sources again right? But I think you are right (and in fact obligated) to out them, as otherwise what is the disincentive toward using reporters to spread lies?

People lie. Sometimes they lie to hurt others. Sometimes they have particular motives for wanting certain false information out there. Sometimes they don't actually know they are passing false information. That is why interview techniques are important.

That too doesn't answer what I asked. And I was clear that you have no doubt they lied to you and knew it when posing this scenario. The Anthrax story Glenn discussed was clearly such a case. The sources were blatantly lying.

What difference does their motives make? They're liars and broke an agreement of confidentiality and honesty. They can be outed IMO with no broach of journalism standards, in fact, this can only bolster them.

I'm not talking about situations where the source is just wrong or may have been misled themselves (see: Scott McClellan) but where it's clear they lied and had motive to do so in order to foster the government agenda.

I think protecting the source at that point is a selfish act by the journalist to keep "access" and garner future leaks from these same informants. The public interest is not served.

Well, there are journalists and there are shills. Journalists are just human. Even polygraph tests are iffy for detecting lies. However, if one suspects the motives of someone and thinks those motives may lead to lying, just don't print the story.

No. Why agree to anonymity? Why should a person's name not be revealed when the "leak" they are making is not a leak at all but a story favourable to the interests of their superiors? Again, the only motive I can see is the all prized "access" - So Karl Rove might tell an underling, "go to Brian Ross, he plays the game"

That's precisely the kind of cozy hand in glove relationship between the press and government that many of us are so upset by. Anonymity is a precious tool that should be used sparingly to protect people from punishment when revealing critical information about their organizations or superiors. An FBI insider "leaking" that the FBI made a major drug bust and is about to announce it needs no protection. The journalist should insist the tip be attributable by name or not print the story. What's the point of the story? The FBI will announce the bust eventually, the only reason again is selfish: The reporter gets to "break" the story by getting it first.

It's a bullshit "break" though since it's information the organization is proud of and would have revealed anyway. The only point of secretive leaks is to garner more buzz and gossip about the story before they announce it.

This whole game is so stupid. Every event is preceded by leaks of exactly what will happen. We're living in some kind of Greek theatre where the plot is known to the audience and the only point of watching is to see how good the performance is.

Just. Stop.

You've lost your moral compass sir, when you stoop to celebrating the most insipid acts of mainstream journalism because you happen to dislike their target. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, or would you copy Rumsfeld and shake Saddam's hand too because it was politically expedient? Immoral acts don't become moral when done to immoral people.

This isn't about what Hillary has done, it is simply a clear example of the sickness that pervades the press and precludes them from doing their real jobs: Informing the public of that which is actually important.

Think of it this way, what if these documents reveal Hillary was taking bribes or that she secretly is pro-life or some other issue-based bombshell that would sink her candidacy? Who cares? She was in the White House physical building while Bill Clinton got oral sex! That's clearly much more important for voters to know. Now any possible substantive revelations from these documents will be buried and forgotten, even tarnished should they be brought up by the worst deeds of press bottom feeding.

Since I assume you are an Obama supporter I'll point out this kind of garbage only increases sympathy for Clinton and will most likely help her.

No, there is nothing to cheer about here.