A Journalist's Libel Loophole

I am reading an article about Mitt Romney that takes the former governor to task for his CEO-mentality, questioning whether or not the hard-nosed, let's-make-a-deal business-mindedness will work either on the campaign trail or in the White House. One paragraph strikes me as particlarly problematic:

But some colleagues found Romney to be manipulative. Romney had an "ability to identify people's insecurities and exploit them to his own benefit," says a source who worked with Romney bur refused to be quoted for "fear of retribution."

There is no way to confirm the validity of this quote. The journalist is unwilling to name the source so as to protect the identity of the source; and even if the writer did name the unnamed source, the person in question could easily deny that he made any such statement at all.

This is a serious problem, and we saw it in the Duke case. The accuser or source goes unnamed, and effectively seizes the power of anonymity to make claims for which there are no consequences.

I recognize, of course, that specific quote above is not incredibly damning. But what if it were? What if an unnamed source claimed that Romney was prone to make racial slurs during board meetings. Would the same journalist be willing to print this information if he could only cite an unnamed source? Probably not, as as case for personal defamation and libel would have a greater chance of succeeding in court than, say, one that merely claimed Romney was manipulative.

But the problem is the same in both cases: journalists get away with printing material that is difficult to defend. But the damage is done, the words are in print forever. The writers may eventually offer an apology or a retraction, but more people are likely to read the first article than some "correction" that is buried at the bottom of page 12 next to an article on this fall's latest runway fashion.

In my not-so-humble opinion, publishing "facts" or quotes about an event or individual without naming their source(s) is shotty journalism. Whenever I read "said one source who wished not to be identified," I disregard the purported statement or fact.

If the source isn't willing to publicly stand up for the truth, they aren't reliable in my book.

We are living in a world of sloppy journalism, where fact and truth have become whatever one works hard enough to make them.