Defending Andrew Sullivan - Yes, Really

I think Sullivan has become as hateful as possible towards Religion and towards the GOP. And Anatomy of a Smear by Dean Barnett may be a fine read, but in this below it gets it wrong:

One more thing of journalistic interest occurs: The “news” about the motion to seal the divorce papers appeared in the virtual pages of the Atlantic first, not the National Enquirer or the Daily Kos as one might expect. Obviously, Atlantic field reporters haven’t trekked up to Alaska to monitor every random court filing. Therefore, someone had to tip off the Atlantic’s chief rumor spreader about the motion to seal the divorce papers. It would be interesting to know at whose bidding the Atlantic staffer in question is spreading unfounded smears.

I’m sure in the interests of full disclosure, the magazine and its chief rumor spreader will rush this information to the public. Right after they apologize for yesterday’s smear du jour turning up empty.

Neither journalists nor bloggers should feel compelled to give up their sources. No laws were broken. The fact is Sullivan linked to a document, that document was real. Who made him aware of its existence is none of our business. If a publication wants to preach about what good journalism is, they should assign someone to go find out who tipped Sullivan and not create moralistic standards of disclosure that don't and shouldn't exist.

Sullivan might be faulted for how he framed the post and for why he didn't contact the partner to ask why he filed the motion ... but that's about it. It was valid news.

True, Sullivan was too coy by half in his post, no doubt to try and protect whatever shred of a reputation he has left.

Comments

[Frisco Kid]

Sullivan's attacks are like those heard in the Castro District back in the early Seventies.

[dick]

My whole problem with this is that you are asking us to take the word of a reporter that he had a reliable source who passed onto him this information and that he checked and can attest to it. If he cannot do that, then he should not be reporting it. It is one thing to have a source for reliable information. It is quite another to have a hidden source for information that has been proven over and over to be a lie. At that point I think the concept of hiding the source goes out the window. What you are saying is that in court you have the right to face your accusers while in the press you do not. How is someone supposed to respond to lies from unknown sources. How is one to even know what the source provided that the reporter wrote the story on. In the case of what Andrew Sullivan has been reporting lately, there has been no there there. I do not and will not give him the benefit of the doubt on that. When you spread vile gossip about someone as if it were headline news, that person should have the right to be able to respond directly to where yo got the info. Anything less is irresponsible.